Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

RfC: Replacing with sandbox version

Should the current fully protected article be replaced with the sandbox version found at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, retaining current categories? (Specific sandbox version here.)

Note that this proposal is concurrent to and independent of a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Coanda-1910_sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree

• Agree. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. TransientVoyager (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Kaly J. (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - post recent change to remove gas turbine from the intro. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree

• Disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)
• Disagree --Lsorin (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

As the primary author of the sandbox version, I am certainly biased for it, but I feel that it is superior to the current article in many ways. The sandbox version takes the highest quality references into account, pro and con, and presents them in a mostly chronological order, the reader carefully walked through the historiography of the aircraft and the changing opinions about it. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Like you said. It's got quality references, and despite the unavoidable back-and-forth it reads quite well. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I am expecting the replacement to also be editprotected pending further discussions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was an active editor under a different guise for a number of years and now only pop in occasionally to see if there's anything interesting going on, and this caught my eye. I've been watching the developments with keen interest over the last few days and to me the Binksternet sandbox version provides an unbiased, more complete and significantly clearer account than the current one, and should replace it ASAP. However, IMHO the aircraft could be described as being jet-propelled (if it ever did get off the ground!), albeit by an unconventional powerplant that doesn't slot neatly into any of the usual jet engine categories, but I wouldn't go to war on that point. TransientVoyager (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a jet propelled aircraft if the engine had been capable of flight, the jet being a stream of warm air plus piston engine exhaust. Certainly, it is the first attempt at a full-sized jet aircraft, as affirmed by Gibbs-Smith. I, too, don't think this bit is worthy of an edit war.

Regarding whether the first attempt should be listed as a major 'first', Gibbs-Smith quotes Griffith Brewer who said "The meaning of the first flight is the first successful flight; otherwise it would include the first unsuccessful flight." This simple application of of common sense separates all the short hops and non-starters from the ones that actually flew. Romanians can be proud that their countryman invented something quite clever, but as he did not attain controlled flight with the Coanda-1910, or follow the invention up with better subsequent versions which could fly, he is not given the honor of "first jet aircraft". If he were alive today and taking part in this discussion, Brewer would say the phrase "first jet aircraft" means the first successful jet aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm; yes, I understand your reasoning and agree that without concrete evidence that the Coanda-1910 successfully attained controlled flight then naturally we can not say it was the first jet-propelled aircraft, but a novel attempt at one. Just as a point of interest though, it could be argued that as long as it moved (even if only on the ground) then it was jet propelled, but the term "aircraft" is rather more in question if it never took to the air! ;) Clear as mud eh?! TransientVoyager (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Following you logic, would a jet-propelled cart with a double umbrella be accepted to an Aero Show?--Lsorin (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be a sight to see, and a quantum leap in umbrella design as well! If it was capable of controlled flight then yes I imagine it would, otherwise it would be exhibited on a cart or umbrella stand (pun not intended). :D However, I can see where you're coming from Lsorin, and I'm not saying that the Coanda-1910 didn't deserve a place at the Paris aero exhibition – it certainly did – I was merely attempting to explain why I thought the term "jet propelled" could be applied whether or not flight was attained, and just being light-heartedly pedantic over the definition of an aircraft.--TransientVoyager (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jet propelled because it produces a 'jet' of air which has the engine exhaust dumped into it? A propeller produces a 'jet' of air, and many propeller aircraft have the engine behind the prop which results in the exhaust being dumped into this 'jet' of air where it adds (some) heat and energy. Just What makes this one different in that sense? Are you arguing that merely putting a duct around a propeller that has an engine behind it makes it a jet?Romaniantruths (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It depends on your definition of "jet" (not "jet engine") which to me means a concentrated fast-flowing mass of fluid; you may have a different conception and provide a supporting definition. The OED definition of "jet" is a stream of water, steam, gas, flame, etc. shot out esp. from a small opening, and "jet propulsion" is given as propulsion by the backward ejection of a high-speed jet of gas. I suppose the question is at what point do we consider the flow of air has become a jet – where do we draw the line?! Although a conventional propeller as used on aircraft will move a lot of air very quickly, I wouldn't consider the mass flow of air it creates as being a jet; and simply ducting it will not result in a significantly higher-speed flow, though confining the air at the blade tips it will reduce losses and therefore increase efficiency. Everything else being equal, to increase the flow velocity from propellers you naturally require higher rotational speeds, and because a conventional aircraft propeller is large in diameter the tips will approach the speed of sound at a sufficiently high rotational speed and become ineffective at moving air, thus limiting the useful rotational speed, but with the Coandă-1910's propulsive device running at 4,000 rpm within its shroud (considerably smaller in diameter than a propeller) producing a claimed 2.2 kN thrust, the air must have been moving pretty damn quick, hence my assertion that it could be considered as being jet propelled. However, because there is no reliable corroborative evidence of any measured thrust great enough to propel the aircraft I'm careful not to say should be considered as being jet propelled; just as we can't maintain that the Coandă-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft since none of us know for certain whether or not it sucessfully attained controlled flight. I expect we could have fun and discuss this from now until Christmas and still not be able to come to a conclusion – too many grey areas and personal viewpoints! :-) My own views are based on general principles only since I'm no expert on engines or means of propulsion, but I do have an open mind and I'm happy to be corrected by one (Andy?).--TransientVoyager (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you TransientVoyager and the point which Coanda is making in the beginning of this patent is exactly that a normal propeller will always act as a screw, so its performance is increased by rotational increase of speed which requires more torque power from the engine needed to work on a quadruple increase of drag on the blades moving in the rotational plane. Another way to increase the performance in pitch, but that translates in Coanda considerations as "airbrakes" in a axial movement of machine where the propeller is placed. That is why he is clearly trying to improve the efficiency by creating propulsion by expelling a reaction mass of fluid, in form of jets in case of this plane air jets. Of course I hope that our expert Romaniantruths will read Coanda's patent again to understand this facts written more that 100 years ago.--Lsorin (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is another reason why you'll never find anywhere in literature that Coanda was trying to create thrust for his plane by a normal propeller. Every single scholar of Coanda admits that his powerplant was designed to generate propulsion by expelling air fluid (e.g. Gibbs-Smith "jet-propelled", Winter "reaction-propelled"). Of course Romaniantruths can write his own expert book about his theories on fumes behind his airplane propeller, with special emphasis on Coanda "smoking" airplane.--Lsorin (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Transient Voyager:I'm talking about your conception of a jet..."A concentrated fast flowing mass of fluid". You concede that, "A conventional propeller will move a lot of air very quickly", Then just how is this not "a concentrated fast-flowing mass of fluid"? It seems that you're calling the turbopropulseur a jet because you feel it's air jet travels faster than a propeller's. This brings up two questions: 1 Is it actually faster? Do we have any figures for air-velocity on this thing? Or air velocities for propellers of various types? 2 Even if it is, just how fast must it go to meet your defenition of a 'jet', and is this threshold speed something you can quote a reference for, or is it just what sounds right to you.

Lsorin, you reply has nothing to do with the point at contention. And the drag on a centrifugal blower, varies exponentially with the blower speed as well.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand what is your problem with the propellers and Coanda's jet. In your great "expertise" on propelled aircraft, you don't understand some basic principles. Read the definition of propeller: device with a central hub and radiating blades placed so that each forms part of a helical (spiral) surface. By its rotation in water or air, a propeller produces thrust owing to aerodynamic or fluid forces acting upon the blades and gives forward motion to a ship or aircraft definition. [[1]] And now a explanation for dummies: when a propeller rotates, the same aerodynamic forces as on a normal forward moving wing are going to act on each blade. One of this force if called lift. This force is transmitted to the machine as traction when the propeller is installed in front and that is how the airplane ( in this case ) moves forward. The "wind" and the rest of the "air jets" that blow your cigarette smoke behind your cart is generated because your cart is stuck to the ground. Coanda was trying to create a working mass to produce acceleration, not the traction of a propeller.--Lsorin (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths: you know as well as I do that there are no available "figures for air-velocity on this thing"; and on the question of "how fast must it [the mass of air] go to meet your defenition (sic) of a 'jet'", you must have noted my comment that "I suppose the question is at what point do we consider the flow of air has become a jet – where do we draw the line?", so you already know that I understand this is a grey, impossible-to-define or to quantify area – can you give a precise definition that includes measurable parameters? Additionally, on your frequent references to the air moved by propellers – if you think that the cylinder of air moved by a propeller can be considered to be a jet of air, it follows that propeller-driven aircraft are consequently jet propelled, and neither you nor anybody else believes that. Now, I don't really see any profit in flogging this discussion any further just for the sake of it – I know your opinion and you know mine and I doubt either of us will be swayed. --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely subscribe to you comment TransientVoyager. All this mess was started by Romaniantruths started to think of his cigar smoke blown behind his propelled cart stuck to the ground. In the patent Coanda explained the normal propellers limitations already know about propellers at the time. This is why Coanda built an engine working on pure reaction mass principles. This cannot be contested as Romaniantruths or nobody else in this discussion will ever find a single source which will say the Coanda-1910 powerplant was having a propeller. --Lsorin (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, TransientVoyager, my point is that a "jet of air" does not make a jet engine.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read the definition of a jet engine? Looks like you never did that. Please read it and then come back with your theories about cigarettes or change the definition of jet engine so that your "leaf blower" does not fit it.--Lsorin (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained to you time after time, after time, after time, after time, by many, many, many, many, editors on this site why Wikipedia is not used as a reference on Wikipedia. Even your old pal Redfoot told you that.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Aah, I think I can see where the confusion between us is Romaniantruths. Actually I completely agree with you that a "jet of air" does not make a jet engine, and at no time have I ever referred to the turbo-propulseur as one! My argument is that because the motive power of the aircraft is derived from the jets or air exiting from the orifices at the rear of the cowling,[2] it is effectively jet propelled in the most basic sense of the term, nothing more. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• too big version, too complicated, with biased quotes in some parts, for example Walter Boyne, one of the most reliable and competent source is missing and latest statement of Gibbs (where he admit the pre-eminence of Coanda as a jet airplane)is not quoted, just older versions combating Coanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)
• My proposal is that the older version who was most stable (for few years, before Romanianthruts come arround couple months ago and start this mess)to be re-established and protected, then we start to discuss from then. Lsorin article is too more balanced and compact, and a better start for a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

disagreeRomaniantruths (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• hmm, we saw here all the possible things who made wikipedia an unreliable site. We have editors unable to read or comprehend some quite simple things, even if it was explained to them several times, even with drawings. We have same peoples talking about stuff writed years after events, as it was writed before, mixing everything in their mind, and understanding nothing. We have others believieng that queen of England is the ultimate authority in aviation and engines. We have same peoples stating as the best authorities in aviation and engines (beside the queen) a mentaly deranged historian (of all kind of stuff, from tapestry to old photograpies) who believed in ghosts and who worked most of his career as keeper of Public Relations and had no technical or engineer studies, or a former journalist who obtain a degree in history, as well with no technical studies. In the same time peoples really qualified and who studied all the possible archives, as a former director of Air and Space Museum, who was Air Force colonel and jet supersonics pilot, or rocket scientists, both prolific authors of aeronautics related books and aviation historians, are considered somehow second rank sources. And, to this freak circus to be complet, the afirmations of those unreliable sources (as Gibbs and Winter) stating that, after all, Coanda-1910 was indeed the first full jet propelled plane are not taked in consideration, and some managed to edit and protect their own biased and weird view of events. No wonder why wikipedia is such disregarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• i reintroduced Boyne statements, as he is one of the most reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.45 (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• reintroduced Boyne statement, Binksternet i understand you are bothered by what he said, but stop erasing him, i consider too Gibbs unreliable (and he is actualy, compared with Boyne or Stine) but i didnt remove all he said. Hope you understand that even you are an older editor you are in a edition war and need to be edit warring since you and you buddy already make a mess after you start derailling this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.41 (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request per RfC

{{edit protected}} Based on the decisive results of the above RfC, please replace the current article with the contents of Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, retaining current categories. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree The introduction in not supported by any reference existent in the Reference or Bibliography lists. The Edit War will start from scratch tomorrow. No consensus was reached and the version from the sandbox is biased on Winter's account ( most of the references are from his 1980 book) --Lsorin (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In the RfC above, six editors agreed to the change, while one IP editor did not. The IP editor's weak arguments (Boyne a supposed major source, Gibbs-Smith 1970 supposed opinion change) were answered. Your opinions and those of the IP editor do not change the greater weight of other opinions forming the consensus. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Never consensus was reached of this page. So I don't consider the topic closed. Gibbs-Smith account is not relevant as it is listed in the WP:RSN as not relevant. Same for Winter.--Lsorin (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • You are still trying to destroy the Gibbs-Smith and Winter sources? Simply amazing. That RS/N thread scrolled off into the archives after Hans Adler stepped in between you and me to say Gibbs-Smith was "highly relevant". Adler said he would comment further on Winter, but did not find the time. At Talk:Coandă-1910#Waiting_for_Winter, your opinion that Winter was not reliable was not shared by others. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Andy said that Winter is just plain wrong and Gibbs-Smith is not reliable. Andy was named by you an expert on the subject. This implies that the sources are unreliable. Adler did not comment on Gibbs and Winter which leave this statements valid:

Best sources from archived RS/N thread

Best sources according to Lsorin The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the Coandă jet plane claim: Jet Engine definition in Encyclopedia Britannica Henri Coanda Papers [Stine, 1920-1961 (bulk 1950s)] at Smithsonian Institution Research Information System Academia Republicii Populare Romîne. Institutul de mecanică aplicată., & "Traian Vuia.". (1956). Revue roumaine des sciences techniques: Série de mécanique appliquée. Bucharest: Académie de la République Populaire Roumaine, Institut de mécanique appliquée. The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the claim: none none none Best sources according to Binksternet The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the Coandă jet plane claim: Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was an aviation historian with the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum (London) from 1932 to the 1970s, knighted for his expertise in aviation history. The Smithsonian Institution appointed him as the first Lindbergh Professor of Aerospace History at the National Air and Space Museum. The Royal Aeronautical Society recognized his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. Gibbs-Smith included in some of his aviation history books short passages against Coanda's version of events in 1910, one published in 1960: The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development: "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine, designed by the Rumanian-born and French-domiciled Henri Coanda, which was exhibited at the Paris salon in October of 1910. Until recently it has been accepted as an all-wood sesquiplane, with cantilever wings, powered by a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a 'turbo-propulseur' in the form of a large but simple ducted air fan. ... 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." In 1970, Gibbs-Smith continued his denial of Coanda's version of the aircraft having flown: "Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane..." "The first jet aeroplane to fly, the Heinkel He 178: 1939." "the first jet aeroplane was designed in France, but not built (de Louvrié, 1865)..." Frank H. Winter has been a historian at the National Air and Space Museum for thirty years. Winter published in 1980 a very thorough analysis of Coanda's claims, published in the Royal Aeronautical Society's The Aeronautical Journal: "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". There is a copy of this article at my local university library, and I intend to check it out soon. Until then, snippets are viewable online: "...may be added the Frenchman Charles de Louvrié, who, in 1863–1865, designed his Aéronave propelled by the burning of 'a hydrocarbon, or better, vaporised petroleum oil' ejected through two rear jet pipes. If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned." The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the claim: Stine, G. Harry (August/September 1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, volume 12. Stine worked alongside Coanda at Huyck Corporation from 1961 to 1965, and helped him make new versions of early engine sketches, the 1965 versions showing the 1910 engine with fuel injection and combustion in the airstream. "The [Coanda] effect was first observed in 1910 by Henri-Marie Coanda, in connection with exhaust flow from an experimental jet engine". Brady, Tim (2000). The American aviation experience: a history. Brady is the Dean of the College of Aviation at the Daytona Beach Campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "The development of the jet is, broadly, the story of three men: Henri Coanda, Sir Frank Whittle, and Pabst von O'Hain... 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 flew for about a thousand feet before crashing into a wall." Royal Air Force Flying Review, November 1956. Cited by Gibbs-Smith as championing Coanda's version. Gibbs-Smith hints that the "important source quoted" was Coanda himself. The article is so far undiscussed on Wikipedia, as it is not online, and nobody has looked it up in library archives. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically there is no reliable source supporting your introduction.--Lsorin (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • You are putting words into Dingley's mouth—he never said Winter was an unreliable source. You are the only one who mentioned Winter in that thread. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Since were are you allowed to edit some other editor entries? Should I take this to the administrators board? This is the second time when you do it on the same entries! Andy's entry as an expert: "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is plainly wrong which makes Winter as a resource for this article irrelevant.--Lsorin (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
              • There is no need to bring content here from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Coanda-1910_sources especially since you have already linked to it. The addition piles up text under this very clear request which is supported by consensus. Do not cloud this edit request with fog and unresolved discussions. You have already argued the point at RS/N, but your voice was not in the emerging consensus to bring the sandbox version here. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Andy Dingley's dismissal of the one phrase "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is not a dismissal of Winter as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
              • Lsorin, are you threatening an edit war if we don't go along with your version of history? Maybe you should take that to the administrators. I'm sure they'll be very impressed with your determination and take steps to ensure that the threatened edit war never happens.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
                • The edit war was started by Romaniantruths in July 2010. The problem is that the administrators for some reason are ignoring this fact.--Lsorin (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit war will not happen. Either I will extend the block, or I will impose a 1RR probation on this article in which only one revert per user per day is allowed, with every revert requiring explanation on the talk page. 1RR violations will be enforced by long-term blocks. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Lsorin, one editor editing a page is not an edit war. Especially when the new information and suggested changes have been posted on the talk page for a considerable period of time with no objections whatsoever from any Wikipedia editor. If you go back and check the talk-page history you'll see that this is exactly what happened. The edit war was started by several pro-jet editors, (such as the anonymous IP from Brasov [whoever he really is] who started erasing large blocks of references without discussion and making unwarranred accusations of vandalism). As a matter of fact The edit war went on for some time and numerous warnings had been issued before any Editor other than me had ever posted anything on the talk page.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the edit request on my own. The sandbox version is in the article. There were some Romanian categories which did not seem appropriate, as the aircraft appears to have been built in France. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Henri Mirguet writing in 1912

In January 1912, aviation journalist Henri Mirguet wrote in L'Aérophile that Coanda might have been lying to him in 1910 during the Paris exhibition. He said Coanda told him in 1910 when he asked questions about the 'turbo-propulseur' that the machine had achieved 112 kilometres per hour (70 mph) during several flights. Mirguet wrote that he "reserved judgment" about the claim; a sensible move when it is realized that during the Paris exhibition, the air speed record was broken, upping it to 110 km/h (68.2 mph), making Coanda's claim extraordinary. Mirguet would have been well aware of current air speeds.

Is it possible that Coanda meant that the machine demonstrated such speeds at its exit port during static tests? Did Mirguet not hear or understand correctly? Is the English translation faulty?

If Coanda was saying to Mirguet that the whole aircraft flew before the exhibition, and that it achieved such speed, this would be a great lie. The English translation of Mirguet's article implies exactly this assessment. Here is the English translation from Frank H. Winter of Mirguet's 1 January 1912 article in L'Aérophile:

"The 'chief attraction' of the Aeronautical Salon of 1910 was incontestably the Coanda biplane. Constructors, aviators, expert and ordinary, all asked questions of the young audacious constructor, which centred on his turbo-propulseur. I remember that to my pressing—and indiscreet—questions, he responded with a demonstration, not very convincing, on the merits of the turbo-propulseur, and with the assurance that the machine had achieved a speed of 112 km/hr in several flight tests. In aviation, one should doubt nothing, so I didn't say a word, but I reserved judgment until the confirmation of the test which never came. The new (conventional) engine which had just been shown at the Rheims meet (of 1911), where it aroused ardent controversy, shows the extent of what was kept and what was discarded. What was discarded: the turbojet and the wooden wingloading surface including the forward longitudinal ribs, to assure the regular flow of the fluid. What was kept: the wing section, the frame, and the general form of the fuselage. Everything else was very interesting, but realised in a little different fashion. But engineer Henri Coanda, diploma of the Superior School of Aeronautics, is rich in ideas; he is even prodigious."

I think the parentheses are from the English translator, whoever that was.

Does anybody have this article in French? I would like to see it myself, to investigate whether Coanda might have been saying or implying "static tests" rather than "flight tests". Whichever one it is, Mirguet says he did not get his satisfaction—he never found proof that the engine (or the aircraft) could produce such speeds. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirguet accused Coanda of lying? I'm supprised. I didn't think he started doing that until the 1950's.Romaniantruths (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but in a divergent fashion from the article at hand, because it would interesting if there was an article in the story of the Coanda 1911 aircraft. From what little I've read this would be the use of two engines to counteract torque effect. Also, if it does follow the basic form of the 1910 designthen there is something to be said for mentioning it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is "something to be said" for mentioning both the ground-hugging engine offshoot, the snow sled, and as you say, the 1911 aircraft which appears to have descended in part from the 1910 one. I will put a few relevant sentences into the sandbox. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the real story on the 2 engine single propeller plane: There was a standing offer at the time of a substantial cash prize (50,000 I think)for a twin-engined plane which could fly on only one engine. This plane was Coanda's attempt to win the prize, but it didn't. The torque effect cancellation may have been a side benefit(especially if it had Gnome engines), but it wasn't the primary purpose. I'll let you know if I remember the location of the reference which supplied the detailsRomaniantruths (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths, Winter presents Mirguet as changing from hopeful to dismissive regarding Coanda's jet engine capabilities. In 1980 Winter wrote, "A little more than a year later, L'Aérophile for 1st January 1912 replaced this optimistic view with a decidedly more negative opinion, suggesting that the 1910 turbo-propulseur did fly—but only in the inventor's mind." Devastating! He does not directly call Coanda a liar; the most that can be said is that Winter and Mirguet consider Coanda a dreamer. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not an unreasonable interpretation, but It seems to me that calling him delusional(which is a fair definition of someone who confuses his dreams with reality) is rather worse than calling him a liar.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to get the article as well. Basically this does not bring anything new to the later situation after 1950 except that again from Coanda statements some flying tests with quite amazing results ( 112 km/h is record of speed at the time ) have been done. Is not clear from that article why Coanda abandoned the design, even that is was quite remarkable for that time. Is it because that flight test ended with a crash and burn of his plane? Of course he was a dreamer. His dream was to build a jet airplane, not a propeller provided one.--Lsorin (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, do you realize that now you're saying Coanda flew, crashed, and destroyed his plane before the 1910 airshow it was displayed at? Did he also invent a time-machine and keep that secret as well? And just how is it that all of these journalists who were asking him questions about how his plane worked went home and wrote how it was an air blower? Are you suggesting that he was displaying his plane at an airshow but keeping how it worked a secret, or are you willing to concede that there was no fuel injected or combusted in the air-stream?Romaniantruths (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You really have some dilusional problems and you don't understand even what you are writing? Henri Mirguet wrote about Coanda plane from 1910 in 1912 ( check the title of this section). So I'm wondering: What are you talking about? Are you beliving in time travel and phantoms like Gibbs-Smith?--Lsorin (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your limited abilities in English make it so hard for you to understand the postings on this page. This is, however, the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find some one with better English skills in Brasov to read the above postings over and explain them to you. If you don't have any freinds(with such skills) in Brasov, try re-reading the phrase"Coanda might have been lying to him in 1910 during the paris exposition." Now think about that phrase very, very carefully. Does it suggest to you any particular time when Coanda was doing this lying? Well, Lsorin, does it?Romaniantruths (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR for ALL editors

To head off potential disruption when the article protection expires, I am hereby placing Coandă-1910 under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per twenty-four hours to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (i.e. not just in the reversion notes). If you violate the terms of this sanction, you will be blocked for a duration determined based on the user's prior history, block log, and the severity of the violation. If this is not effective in containing an edit war then the 24-hour restriction will be extended further. This restriction does not prohibit blocks for other disruptive behavior on the article or on this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for taking this article under your wing. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin sandbox version

I started a more neutral sandbox version, based only on the available documentation and discussion in this talk page. The work is in progress for adding the references and especially the rebuttal section. I would be grateful for any comments regarding especially the introduction. Keep in mind as well that I'm not a native English speaker so I will expect some help, especially regarding rewording.--Lsorin (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, I hope it is ok with you to reuse some of the pictures you published in your sandbox.--Lsorin (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is free to use images from WikiCommons, and I welcome you to use the ones I uploaded. I am glad that you are creating a sandbox version of the article; I have been confused as to what it is you wanted from the article. At various times you have appeared to want it deleted, or to have all controversy struck from it, or to have just positive statements agreeing that it is the first jet. Now that you are working on a sandbox version, the confusion will be eliminated. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"More neutral" ? I didn't get past the first sentence. You are still pushing a hugely non-neutral, technically inept and grossly non-encyclopedic viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy thank you first of all for even having a look to my proposal and I hope that you can WP:AGF. I'm not planning to spend my free time in vain, just to get you convinced of something hugely non-neutral. Could you please propose how to write the first sentence? Please point out the hugely non-neutral sections and the lyrical points ( I suppose those are non-encyclopedic ). --Lsorin (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Andy was put off by the same element of the first sentence that put me off: the Coanda-1910 was the "first jet-propelled aircraft". This is a controversial claim endorsed by some experts and denied by other experts. You cannot have a Wikipedia article choose only one side of a dispute, per the "non-negotiable" policy at WP:NPOV where it says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" must be "represented fairly". The guideline continues by stating emphatically "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Your first sentence violates this admonition. Further, "if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, it is normally necessary to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts." If you follow this rule, the aircraft cannot be "the first jet aircraft" as a fact, it can only be said to be the opinion of this or that source that it was the first, with the opposing view given equal balance. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Coandă-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft, powered by a reactive propulsion unit consisting of a turbine driven from a conventional engine."

There are perhaps four problems, just in this sentence. You shouldn't need me to point them out, they are patently clear to anyone following this debate. Yet your "neutral" draft walks straight over them and keeps on pushing the same unsupportable agenda that you, and you alone, have been pushing all along.

Perhaps worst of all though is the non-encyclopedic phrasing. What is a "reactive propulsion unit"? What (even worse) is a "turbine"? What does "jet-propelled" mean? This is the opening sentence of an article in a general audience encyclopedia. Terms used must be accessible and these are anything but. "Reactive propulsion unit" is simply meaningless, except as the opening for an argument over semantics amongst subject experts. "Turbine" is far worse, as that does have a well-understood meaning, which this usage clearly isn't and worst of all there's scope for confusion with a foreign language term from a century ago that is close enough to be confusing yet is really used to mean almost the opposite. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Binskternet according to what you wrote above the "ducted fan" statement is incorrect as well as Coanda clearly tried to increase the kinetic power of his jets by adding heat. I really cannot agree that Coanda was building just a ducted fan. The initial ducted fan purpose was to direct the air produced to a particular direction. He was testing that already with this "giro"-machine in Germany. There is no provision of such movement of his "turbo-propulseur" or cowling which will immediately make it a ducted fan. Is suppose the propeller tip vortices problems were not even analyzed at the time so I suppose, that was not in Coanda's mind. I personally assume that Coanda was aware of Lorin proposal two years before in L'Aerofile (Lorin engine used kinetic energy of the exhaust gas to propel the machine) but which Lorin declared as difficult to put in practice because of the initial speed needed to get the air compressed in the engine chamber. So my personal assumption would be that, Coanda tried to solve Lorin's compression problem with a normal fan and then straitened the compressed air to produce as well jets to be used as reaction propulsion. As well the jets will increase their energy by heating, for which Coanda proposed the use of the exhaust gases from the reciprocal engine. Again personally I cannot doubt Coanda's agenda when building and testing his "turbo-propulseur", that he was trying to improve the existing propellers designed airplanes performance, or even with ducted fans, with a new system that will create high velocity air jets. I completely agree with Andy that the technologies of 1910 would never made the solution feasible ( even Campini abandoned their project especially regarding the efficiency of such construction with regard of the fuel consumption versus weight and complexity ) and the turbojet solution for high velocity turbines and very high temperatures would be impossible in 1910.

In conclusion, if you agree with what I wrote above, we need to find an introductory phrase which states the indeed Coanda build an aircraft to be propelled by an engine which follows the principles of a jet engine as understood today "any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid, usually hot exhaust gases generated by burning fuel with air drawn in from the atmosphere". If it was successful or not I will not contest and there the large amount of reference will help one direction or another and both shall be equally presented.--Lsorin (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy I just noticed your comment now. Let me reflect for a while but please look and the stuff I wrote above if it makes any kind of sensible sense.--Lsorin (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy "reaction propulsion unit consisting of a turbine" I copied as such from by Gibbs-Smith book from 1970. "jet-propelled" term is from his book as well ("reaction-propelled" term from Winter's 1980 book you don't like either). I totally agree with you especially the translations from French (Romanian) to English. Every single "jet engine" term is translated in French as "motor a reaction". Plain encyclopedic term in those languages. So that is why I asked your native English language support to find the right wording.--Lsorin (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Touché, Lsorin, nice riposte! I see you have taken my argument against you and turned it successfully against me. I will now go to the sandbox I have been working on and I will remove disputed facts that I have not treated as opinions, per WP:NPOV. You might do the same yourself!

For anybody fluent in French: what is the difference between machine à réaction and motor à réaction? Coanda himself uses the term machine à réaction to describe the wings he is testing in early 1910, as well as propellers. He says "Les ailes des aéroplanes et les hélices aériennes sont des machines à réaction." Perhaps this is another instance of an early term being used by a pioneer, the term changing to something else later. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So I understand that slowly we start getting to some kind of agreement. I hope that Andy can join us because his the expert in engines and the last editor of some kind of stable Coanda-1910 article. ( sorry for using this stable thing again)

As personal parentheses: I really think that somebody from Hollywood should read this talk page because a real nice script can be made of a very strange story going across a century and several continents. I did know only basic facts initially about his plane and more are coming out every day. For instance, I really hope to be able, to get the latest ( dated 1 October) book from Dan Antoniu, as he declared in some scientific communications in France and Romania, that very novel information have been found in the private archives of Coanda and several particular archives in Italy, England and France regarding his work around 1910 and Coanda-1910. As well I really hope that the guys from the University of Bucharest which run the www.jet100.com will be successful with their project rebuild a functional 1:1 replica of the plane, especially the engine.--Lsorin (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy and Binksternet, what about this introduction: "The Coanda-1910 was the first aircraft to feature a jet engine prototype. Several historians and scientists consider the engine just a simple ducted fan, where as supporters of later Coanda's claims call it in today's terms a motorjet."--Lsorin (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Canovetti a year earlier? It is not so easy to customize some kind of "first jet" to bestow on Coanda. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Canovetti's story is very interesting and must be noted, but as I understood he "attempted" to show it in Milan and applied for patents which does not mean in practices that be build it. The same with Lorin's proposals, he applied for patents on his ramjet, but he never tried to build it. The difference is that Coanda really build and tested a thing based on such principles, that's why I did call it a "prototype".--Lsorin (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I managed to find Cosimo Canovetti's patents. The first[3] one which was applied on 1st of June 1912, and the second in Switzerland [4] later in 1913, are describing clearly the injection and combustion of gas. But is missing a very important key element the compressor or "ducted fan". We all agree and I hope that Andy can support me here with more technical details, that without the compression of air in were the burning of gas happens, there is not to so much kinetic impulse created, more like just some kind of flame throwers. Any reciprocal engine works on the air compression principle. Another striking feature are the pictures, which are strikingly similar to Coanda's later drawings [5]. Just a biased comment: As Caproni did participate to Coanda's work in Paris it might happen the the drawings of the injectors and burners where exchanged through him, between Canovetti and Coanda or vice-versa.--Lsorin (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Binksternet's French language question; if my fading memory serves me correctly, "machine" is an encompassing general term that can be used to mean "mechanism" or "device", while "motor" is specifically that – a motor or engine. Not sure if that helps. Great debate BTW! --TransientVoyager (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Lsorin, you didn't find Canovetti's first patent on his ducted fan. This is a later patent on a jet engine (notice how, unlike all of Coanda's patents, it does describe an propulsion system that emits burning gasses to propell the engine. Canovetti was explicit that he took out patents in 1909 (not applied for, took out) on his ducted fan. (In addition, Canovetti had been working on various ducted fan designs since at least 1903 according to the literature available on the internet from reliable contemporary sources, so you're not going to get very far trying to imply that Coanda was first.) Just finding any engine patent he filed after 1910 and pretending that it's the ducted fan from 1909 is completely unjustified. Your comments also show that you have completely misunderstood this interesting but completely impractical patent. There actually is "compression of air in were the burning gas happens", but apparently you can't tell "were the burning gas happens". The burners are not "strikingly similar" to Coanda's later drawings, they bare little similarity as they're not even burners, they're jet nozzles. And now you're making up stories about how Canovetti must have gotten his "burners" from Coanda? They're not burners, and you don't even have any evidence that Coanda had burners in the first place, do you? Also, the way you keep confounding Caproni and Campini should be commented on. They're two different people! Romaniantruths (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What Canovetti patent? Please find it for me! Could you please provide me that literature about Canovetti work on ducted fans in 1903? I never said that Coanda invented a ducted fan. You keep telling that since July. Canovetti machine prepared for Milano exposition was having a normal propeller. The engine was some kind of fan or turbine with a supercharger or something similar. Coanda build a plane propelled with air jets if you belive it or not. Campini and Coanda were friends their whole life and Campini was the first to find a practical motojet solution and to put it in the air. Regarding "confounding" of Campini or Canovetti definitely is not my job. I did not touch a single article in Wikipedia regarding Campini or Canovetti. Is it you the jet engine expert and the aviation historian confounding the 'expert' and liar Henry Coanda. One of your own scientific entries: "He just made many lies as an old man with no prouve!"--Lsorin (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Canovetti patent which has been discussed and described on this page repeatedly. If you want to see the original for some reason, go find it. The plane using it built for the Milan exposition has been discussed above as well. It was not "having a normal propeller", and the engine was not,"some kind of fan or turbine with a supercharger or something similar". Why are you making such claims? Do you have any evidence at all? As to Campini, Caproni, and Canovetti maybe you should try re-reading my post and see if it's more clear to you this time. However I am gratified to see that you now admit that Coanda was a liar(and I see that your use of 'scare quotes' signifies that you don't consider him an expert), and I agree with you that "He just made many lies as an old man with no prouve"Romaniantruths (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't a "prototype of a jet engine". A prototype is an early developmental model of some eventual design. In Coanda's case there was no such "eventual jet engine", the design of 1910 was fundamentally the same as it ever became: which isn't a jet engine. Claiming this to be a prototype of something else, i.e. a jet engine, is tantamount to claiming Coanda's invention of a jet engine at this time, something for which there is still no evidence. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We face a rather harder problem than Gibbs-Smith, as we're writing for a general encyclopedia audience. Terms like "reaction propulsion unit consisting of a turbine" are unhelpful for our purposes as they're unrecognisable to our audience. Anything we place in an introductory section must be an already familiar term, with an unambiguous meaning. If we wish to discuss Coanda's or Gibbs-Smith's exact phrasing later, then we must do that carefully and by clarifying each new term as we first use it. "Turbine" should not be used in any way that's confusable with its likely interpretation, that of a converter from gasflow to rotation. "Reaction propulsion unit" is no use to us either, because it communicates nothing to the mind of our audience. We should certainly use the term, as it has a historical significance here, as does "turbo-propulseur", but it still doesn't belong in the introduction where there's no space to expand it as we encounter it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy you are the expert especially in the aviation area and I really puzzled by your comment! Any single plane has a prototype. Same for engines! There were several prototypes of planes and engines especially, never put in practice after the the initial test. We had discussed a lot on this page on other examples Canovetti tests, [[Campini_Caproni_CC.2]. Those engines were tested once and the development was scraped after that. Others Lycoming R-7755, Project Pluto, the NB-36H nuclear engine project and many more. So please explain yourself.

I tend to agree with your that the audience is larger, but still why anybody would read or buy Gibbs-Smith books? Because they are interested in aviation subject. An encyclopedia is basically the same. There are 3 millions articles in this Wikipedia. Definitely at least personally I will not look in article which I'm not interested in. So I expect than that the big majority of people reading about Coanda-1910 in Wikipedia for the first time will have some interest on such aviation subjects. So I assume that the basic understanding of what an engine, what jet or reaction propulsion means. Of course normal people will be directed to this article from a newspaper or from his colleague at the office or something like that. This is will I will send the novice strait to the definitions of engine, jet engine,turbine,ducted fun or reactive engine during the reading. I don't understand why we need to reinvent the definition of the jet engine and put it in the introduction on this article? Is the heat-augmented more understandable for a novice? Or for an aviation enthusiast?--Lsorin (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re prototypes, generally where there are only one-offs - such as experimental aircraft built from scratch (Bristol Type 188 - prototype may not be the best word to use. It implies that the design was considered for or put into production. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with Graeme here. "Prototype" is a widely mis-used term. The key part of its correct use is that it's an earlier precursor to something else, and that prototype is discarded in time when it's replaced by the finished item. The prototype demonstrates an unproven principle, or it permits some experimental research, but it's only ever (and always) regarded as an intermediate step towards something else, and the plans for that something else are already being considered before the prototype is built. This doesn't often happen, certainly not for aircraft in 1910. Aircraft of this period could be described as "prototypes of aircraft" (in the general sense), but they're not (until maybe WWI) prototypes of a particular design. Coanda's 1910 design was what he intended it to be, as a done deal. He had no plan for a "version 2" immediately following it. If he had a plan to make aircraft after it (I'm sure he did), then he knew that these would be sufficiently novel in design that they'd effectively be new designs from scratch, based on the experience he'd gained with the previous step. A "prototype" might have been for Coanda to build a simpler fan anbd power it with a smaller and cheaper engine, then to build the more expensive full-size version after attracting funding. There's no indication he was planning in this way, or that he had any pre-concieved notion of what to build as his next aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If he did this experimentation just for fun, why did he claimed patents on that? At least that what I understand about the word prototype from English language. (see the example: He is developing a prototype for his invention. ) What will be the correct term to describe it then? Prototype for serial production is more like pilot. That is were the mass production comes into picture. Or am I wrong?--Lsorin (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about experimental aircraft? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't wanted to comment on Brinksternet sandbox, but now I have to do it. This is and early aircraft. All early aircraft where experimental, in modern time terms. We have that information in the infobox for each early aircraft. Why do you to have it in the introduction? What about this proposal: Coanda-1910 the first airplane to use jet propulsion instead of propeller generated traction.--Lsorin (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a new and novel proposal Lsorin. How about this one as a compromise? "Coanda 1910 was the first airplane to copy Canovetti's use of a ducted fan for propulsion."Romaniantruths (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this instroduction: Coanda 1910 was the first airplane to use jet propulsion execept for Romaniantruths expert, which in his future book that the autumn leaves are blow away behind the plane.--Lsorin (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sled HP

I see there's a discrepancy between Winter's HP figures and those in the 1911 Popular Mechanics article. Can we agree that Winter is the more reliable source? He goes into substantially more detail about the engine and apparently checked several sources to arrive at his figures.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Both horsepower figures are correct, per Winter. The aircraft used a 50 hp Clerget engine, and Pierre Clerget also helped by fabricating the rotary compressor. The snow and ice sled used a 30 hp Gregoire engine, and I don't know who made its associated rotary compressor—maybe Clerget? The Gregoire engine was lower in horsepower. I should probably send you the JPG scans I have of the 1980 Winter article--it has the details about the Gregoire engine. I do not see "email this user" associated with your user page. Email me if you want to see the JPGs. The images take a little under 6 MB in total. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't word that clearly. The Popular Mechanics article says 50 HP for the aircraft, but 40 HP for the sled. Probably a mis-print by Popular Mechanics. I'll contact you as soon as I get myself an e-mail address. (No, I'm really not kidding). Romaniantruths (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should two engines by the same maker be assumed have the same rated power? Engines of this period were hand-made as individuals, not mass-produced, so there could be many deliberate variations introduced during their construction. Just look at the Clerget 9 for a wide range of output power, all from the "same" engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think anyone made the ridiculous assumption that two engines by the same maker would automatically have the same power rating? I said nothing of the sort(nor did Binksternet), and in fact I never alluded to the respective makers of the various engines (Clerget and Gregoire) Coanda used to power his turbopropulseurs. I said the sled has a reported HP of 40 in the Popular Mechanics article as opposed to the 30 HP rating given for it in the Winter article. (and this is, of course, far to large a discrepancy to be caused by the differences between SAE gross, DIN, and SAE net measurement standards)I think that the fact that most engine manufacturers, even in this modern era of mass-production, make more than one engine, and even offer specific engines in various displacements and states of tune is well known to anyone who has ever shopped for internal combustion powered vehicles of any kind. I am also well aware that engines varied more widely in their specifications back in the days of babbit main-bearings, updraft carbs, and square valve timing.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by Lsorin already

This isn't a good start:

"The Coandă-1910 was the first air reactive-propelled[ref Winter] aircraft later argued as not being world's first jet."

Firstly, it's bad encyclopedic copywriting. "air reactive-propelled" is unintelligible, it doesn't belong in the first sentence of any article. Secondly it brings in a pejorative phrasing of "argued as not being", imnplying that it was, but some meanies are arguing against it.

At this point I would already support a long block for Lsorin, even indef. This is an editor who has learned nothing over recent weeks, and has no respect at all for consensus and the notion that sometimes one editor's viewpoint does get to lose. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just an edit, while not necessarily supported by consensus, it does not of itself constitute an edit war, or even the opening shot of one. You have a single revert if you wish to use it, and we take one step at a time. The other option is to ask for the article to be protected again and return to requested edits and consensus on each edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

i've ben following (well trying to follow) this discussion for a while, but certainly don't know enough about the subject to comment as to whether the aircraft can be called a jet, but have been speaking English for 50 years, and can recognise bad english when it is written. I have revised Lsorin's first sentence into normal english. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, IdreamofJeanie, but I took your better wording and reverted to my earlier wording, as my one revert today. I did this because Winter brought up the possibility that Canovetti made the first 'plain air jet' aircraft in Italy one year earlier, so Coanda might not have been first. Binksternet (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Canovetti did not claim anything ever about this "turbo" fan. So stop teaching, again, the new editors of this messy discussion, how to read the Winter's account.--Lsorin (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I did ask already Amatulic for a total block for my account. This was because at least at that time, we did not reached consensus. Binksternet and Romaniantruths never participated in any consensus build up in this discussion page. So please block me even forever in editing any page in Wikipedia because we never reached consensus. There is not a single source reliable or not, which will state that Coanda-1910 was not the first jet-propelled aircraft. If it was contested, that's is another story and it is presented in the rest article ( which is BTW some kind of mixed up copy of Winter's account). Another solution will be to lock the article again and I ask this from the administrators to do it right now. And another thing, Andy we asked (Binskternet as well) you in several time to propose an introduction to the article because whatever is written there, even copied from any historian paranoid or not, is still "non-encyclopedic" for you. So come with a proposal and stop accusing everyone, even the historians as being wrong, stupid or wrong intended.--Lsorin (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, You haven't yet been disruptive, but it seems you are also not considering seriously the arguments of others who disagree with you. If you want to be prevented from editing the article, then simply exert your willpower to ban yourself from this topic and go on to other things. Blocking your account would prevent you from working anywhere on Wikipedia, not just on this article.

I can always lock the article again if the editors here desire, but I felt that a 1RR probation would be a reasonable compromise between a total lock and free-for-all edit-warring. Let's see how it works for a while. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Canovetti sources

Lsorin wrote "Canovetti did not claim anything ever about this 'turbo' fan." This may be true, but I have been looking at Winter's discussion of Canovetti, and Winter's quote taken from Canovetti. I am sure there are other sources out there... Let's list them and discuss. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Frank H. Winter (1980) "If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, as far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned. It was known that the Italian engineer Camille Canovetti had been working along these lines earlier and eventually also built a full-sized turbine propulseur. His machine is depicted in L'Aerophile for 15th December 1911. In this source, Canovetti himself gives some credit to Coanda but also says: 'We had abandoned our experiments and attempted to show our machine at the Aviation Exposition in Milan in 1909; we took out some patents and in 1910 some further patents. The appearance of the Coanda turbine at the Salon of Aviation in Paris in 1910 called general attention to these questions.' "
  • Winter then points out (as he does frequently with other people who are quoted) that Canovetti does not mention anything about the Coanda-1910 flying or crashing. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ferdinando Abbi (1995) "L'idea si era dimostrata irrealizzabile anche se il Canovetti stesso aveva costruito nel 1909 un moto-reattore in cui un motore alternativo azionava un ventilatore centrifugo che generava 'la colonna d'aria'." ("The idea had proved impossible even if Canovetti himself had built in 1909 a reaction motor in which a piston engine ran a centrifugal fan that generated 'the column of air'.")

• Italian language Wikipedia, translated by Google. The Italian text has no inline cites: "After contact with Treviso, Canovetti completely abandoned civil engineering to pursue his true passion: the study of aerodynamics. At the beginning of the 20th century he designed an engine for dirigibles that combined lightness, great simplicity of operation and low vibration: it was an internal combustion engine using gasoline (light gasoline is very volatile) with no drive shaft, the fuel only used as a generator of hot gases under pressure and that is as supercharger. Canovetti made an efficient jet of gas through the exhaust pipe using the gases to move a turbine that transmitted energy to a large rotary screw propeller—the first turboprop engine of Italy and perhaps the world. The device earned him, in November 1909, the first silver medal at the Exhibition of Milan and the Italian Air Force, and, after the patent of 1910, the Wilde prize in France in 1912.
  

"In a detailed report on display at the Association of Engineers in Milan February 17, 1911 Canovetti, convinced of the low yields of screw propulsion devices, a formula of the first mathematical theories on the calculation of the tractive force of a propeller. Refinements of his engine for dirigibles met lukewarm reaction from the staffs of the French and Italian and they underestimated the potential of the invention, but their activity is awarded the French Legion of Honour."

Coanda's 1907 aircraft

From the reference link provided, and google translate, I got to this, with my additions in brackets:

"Coanda flying machine. - Lt. Coanda, (of the) 12th Prussian artillery, would have secretly tried successfully in 1907 in Spandau, a flying machine composed of two surfaces from an airplane propeller with a horizontal axis and 2 propellers sustensives vertical axis direction opposite rotation, arranged one behind the other in the plane of symmetry of the machine and placed one between the two planes airplanes, the smaller one, between these planes and the rudder back. However, the large propeller did not sound absolutely vertical axis and is inclined 17 degrees, a provision which would aim and effect of sousta-range plans airplanes to the action of the air column driven back by this helix. The flying machine on which this information has rather confused, seems a combination of airplane and helicopter, fitted with a motor Antoinette 50-chx (horsepower), which would provide the large propeller sustensive particular, an effort (force?) axial (greater) than 180 kilograms. and the machine would weigh, mounted by the experimenter as 200 kilograms."

Which doesn't tie in with the word gyroscope used in the article. This reads as a report of a report. Is gyroscope from a a different source? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We can remove the "gyroscopes". I found this in a translation from Romanian of a book written by Coanda's scholar Dan Antoniu: Romanian Aeronautical Constructions. In page 19 of this magazine there is a little picture.--Lsorin (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Constantin Coanda (Henri Coanda's father) and Paul Painlevé were colleagues at Sorbona at École Polytechnique. This was taken from "Romanian Aeronautical Constructions" by Dan Antoniu where there is a letter written by Coanda about Painlevé . I don't have that book in English, but I suppose the translation will be something like this: The dialog [with Painlevé] that I had then, got me, mentally, extremely closer to my dream; my knowledge regarding the propulsion was appreciated, but is was not overlooked my gaps regarding the <<optimal curve of the wing>>. I remember this episode especially to highlight that counterpointing, value comparison and well intentioned scientists can easily determine that revolution which lead discoveries and will impulse comparable, from a physical perspective, only with the invention of the propulsive jet.... The book is saying that Painlevé introduce Coanda to Louis Blériot.--Lsorin (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Was the powerplant turbo-supercharged or not?

In a letter from Flight magazine in 1952 written by some John W. Lane of Great Bookham, Surrey, describes a section of Coanda's patent: Here, Coanda produced a device, incorporating an inter-cooler, the principle which was remarkably to that of the modern exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger . Like Binksternet has explained above: Regarding the engine not being "just a fan in a duct", your reference is John W. Lane of Great Bookham, Surrey. Who is that? Is he a greater expert than Stine, Winter or Gibbs-Smith? No, he is an unknown reader of Flight magazine who wrote a letter to the editor in 1952. The letter is well written, make no mistake, but Lane is not a known expert. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It is true that non of the historians (Gibbs-Smith, Winter and Stine) analyzing Coanda-1910 has touched this subject, as non of them was really a jet engine expert. So I'm wondering if Andy can help us with this analysis and if the statement of this nobody=John W. Lane makes any sense.--Lsorin (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy said 'no' to turbine at his talk page: User_talk:Andy Dingley#Fun at Coandă-1910. He wrote: "The problem (and it's a big one) is that this isn't a turbine, it's a fan or compressor." He later wrote: "Your understanding of "reaction" is no clearer either. This is a perfectly applicable term to a ducted fan, in no way does it indicate combustion, rockets or a turbine." Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting letter, but it's just commentary on a patent we've already got. At most we might consider that a letter from an unknown author (near enough blogger status) gains a little RSpectability when passed by the letters editor of Flight.

As to the "turbocharger" claim: What do we mean by this? A turbocharger has two aspects: forced induction (i.e. a compressor that delivers air above ambeint pressure into the inlet manifold), secondly this compressor is driven by a turbine (which must of necessity be a separate element in a separate airflow). This description still appears to have neither. Firstly, and most importantly, there's no indication that Coanda took the engine inlet air from any high-pressure area within the fan. This isn't surprising: it's 1910 and forced induction doesn't work yet. For well known (albeit not covered by WP yet) reasons, engines of this period have very low compression ratios, a necessity of their low octane fuels and the need to avoid the as-yet not understood problem of "knock". They certainly didn't use forced induction (this didn't occur until alcohol fuels were developed). Secondly (and as discussed some time ago on my talk: page) there was an engine-driven fan but no gasflow driven turbine. This could still have been a centrifugal supercharger (as on any number of aero engines from the 1920s onwards), but see my first point as to why not. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy thanks again for the answer. I think the correct term is turbo-supercharged. Did you had a look at the addition from 3 December 1910 to the main patent? At least the drawings look very similar to a today's centrifugal supercharger which was patented by Renault already in 1902. Would make this the first application to a airplane engine?--Lsorin (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Terminology: Anything goes. "turbo-supercharged" is the most specific, but rarely used. You have to be careful to know just what is being described, because terminology is variable and flakey.

Armstrong-Siddeley Jaguar supercharger of 1928

As to this patent, then it's a very advanced design for a centrifugal compressor (No one disputes Coanda's talents as a fluid dynamicist), especially for its time. Compare it to this design of 1928, still with straight blades. It bears much closer comparison with Hooker's work for Rolls-Royce with the R type. Note though that Coanda is driving it directly, from a slower-revving engine. It would have been impossible for a compressor of this shape to have been made for faster speeds at this time (why the Jaguar impeller has straight blades). If fabricated, it would have come apart. It couldn't be machined (from a strong billet) in any practical production process. It couldn't be cast, as Y alloy or Hiduminium weren't yet available to be strong enough, let alone the investment casting techniques needed. So although patents exist around this time for all manner of engine developments, many of which did become practice 20 years later, they didn't appear before WW1 because of a lack of materials, manufacturing techniques, and fuel chemistry to exploit them.

All of which is still irrelevant. No matter how good a compressor Coanda built, if he didn't duct the compressed output into the inlet, that's no supercharger. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote parameter in cites

I deleted some of the quote parameters which were shoehorning text into the article without attempting to incorporate that text in the story of the aircraft. I do not think that such text helps the reader if it is presented at the end of the article in the Bibliography section. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

V-tail ruddervator

I removed conjecture which supposed that the X-tail was similar to later V-tails. Uncited. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The functionality was the same as for the later V-tail configuration ruddervators, it is explained on [6] with a large picture of the tail. We already agreed with GraemeLeggett that the "flaps" used by Winter in his account had the same functionality of later v-tail ruddervators, but I agree that they cannot not be called ruddervators as they are not placed on a V-tail.--Lsorin (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Doped fabric

I removed an unsupported bit that assumed doped fabric was the most widely used wing covering at the time. If someone can return it with a cite I would welcome it. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting categories

After Lsorin restored a motorjet category (without discussing it on the talk page per 1RR injunction by Amatulic) I realized he had a good point: the sources are in conflict about which kind of powerplant the aircraft held. I have removed both the motorjet and the ducted fan categories for that reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that which I missed, and resolving it in a way to avoid anybody being blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Prose

I've taken a run through to address some grammar issues and typos, and to improve readability whilst attempting not to change the meaning of anything. Apologies in advance for any misinterpretations.--TransientVoyager (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort! I'm trying all the time to improve my English skills ;)!--Lsorin (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Museum caption

Bristol City Museum have an exhibition on at present, on the centenary of the Bristol Aeroplane Company. The best bit is outside in the foyer - a couple of engine exhibits from the much-lamented Bristol Industrial Museum collection. Otherwise it's not a very goood exhibition - a few old exhibits of some note, but most is just display boards in the style of the new Museum of Bristol (i.e. content-free pap) and puffery for BAE Systems.

Coanda has two exhibits there: an altimeter of his, and an ultra-wide chord propeller (possibly the infamous one used to drive a bus down the Gloucester Road in 1912). The altimeter has a caption card that might raise a few groans hereabouts:

Henri Coanda was a Romanian who had built an ambitious 'jet' powered biplane in 1910 which crashed on its first test.

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could ask them which sources they used. Though I think it unlikely that they have Coanda's job application with CV from his time at Bristol. ;). At the very least though, anyone inspired to look up Coanda's "jet" powered biplane now is likely to find a superior article in terms of content than from six months back and credit to the interest amnd attention applied by editors here on wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear editors! What is written there is a fact. Wikipedia should present just facts as they are written and keep the personals feeling for the readers. The Wikipedia Editors jobs is to find the facts and list them in this tool, as they are presented with minimal personal biased opinions. If you don't like it, make your own Wiki or web page were you can invent your own Jet engine definitions and stack it with the links and texts you personally like! Sorry guys, this is not the place ( please read again WP:NPOV).--Lsorin (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are so predictable. Mind you, if Bristol museum is now WP:RS, we can re-write Concorde to take the French out of its history. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

BAC's records from this period are actually quite good, certainly George White's diary was around until a few years ago (Rolls might have burned it when the Industrial Museum was trashed). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy thank for noticing that ;) I hope that you can attack me now with my own predictable weapons :P Then I'm wondering what are the reliable sources in your opinion, for this article?--Lsorin (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thrust figures

Just to put the turbo-propulseur's claimed 220 kgf (485 lbf) thrust into context, what sort of maximum thrust figure might the same 50 hp engine be able to generate driving a conventional aircraft propeller of the time? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As Binsksternet started to revert my edits without any consensus, I'm need to reply in this section. Bisnksternet removed the word "Later" from the previous edit:

It is not clear if the compressor had provision for the introduction or combustion of fuel or not, as it was not stated in the earlier patent.(ref) Later, several experts concluded that it would not be possible for the powerplant as described in the leaflet to generate the claimed thrust, without extra injection and combustion of fuel as the jets would leave the diffusers.(ref) Coandă later claimed that such a system existed, but no patent claim was made for it. The engine was noted in some magazines as being "of remarkably small proportions in relation to the size of the machine."(ref)(ref)

Only decades later it was possible to prove that Lorin was right with his assumptions. At the time his claims were criticized. There is a very good book from 1911 about this and comparing the pure pulse jet solution proposed by Lorin and the hybrid jet solution proposed by Coanda ( on Lorin's work of course, this cannot be denied ) I could not get a grip on but I managed to get some notes from study. The main point of that book is that is was difficult at the time to analyze correctly the thrust figures for this types of [jet engines] because Lorin had just a theoretical approach of the subject and Coanda's jet engine was the only one at the time and there was no other similar engine to compare against.

So coming back to the thrust figures. They were able to be explained only after the turbojet engines started to beat record after record after the second world war. At that moment was realized that Coanda's thrust figures could not be explained any other way, than just having the injector and burners in the engine. At this link there is an interesting comparison for the thrust figures. And this is just because there now the engineers had the possibility to compare the 1910 engine thrust figures with the ones they have on the testing bank.

This is why I have to ask somebody to add back the statements removed by Binksternet, as I'm not sure any longer what kind of "Gods of Wikipedia" we have around here which will block me again with the conflicts of interest in mind.--Lsorin (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My most recent version of the paragraph was this:

Some experts concluded that it would not be possible for the powerplant to generate the claimed thrust. The engine was noted in some magazines as being "of remarkably small proportions in relation to the size of the machine." and "claimed to give an enormous wind velocity", but the intake area seemed too small to produce the stated thrust, and that "it also appears as if enormous power would be necessary to drive it", more than supplied by the Clerget.

This paragraph is in a section of the article which is only talking about the 1910s. There is not yet the idea of burners in the air stream. No contemporary source from the 1910s talks about it... None. The mention of burners comes later in the article where Coanda makes his jet claim. The best English writing style means that the story should be told clearly in a logical sequence, and the logical sequence I selected is chronological. In the 1910s, some experts thought the engine was too small to power the plane, so the paragraph works.

You also used a patent as a reference for the ideas in the patent, but this is not acceptable. The patent can only be used as a reference for its own existence, not for the ideas in it. An expert observer should be cited, one who discusses the patents. We have such expert observers in Gibbs-Smith and in Winter.

The paperwarbirds article is a self-published source, a low quality reference full of conjecture. We have much better ones.

You were blocked for putting the same word into the article in violation of the one-revert-per-day rule set by Amatulic. That rule is why you must come to the talk page and discuss any ideas you re-add or remove, and you may make the same general reverts only once in 24 hours. In fact, that rule is working—you are here at the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the chronological order. As you might have noticed the edits I've made are trying to follow in general the chronological order. So I will move the information about Canovetti and I will add the work of Lorin to the Early development section and 1910s. The idea of afterburners was not new in 1910 and from Coanda's statements he used it. It is not clear if the plane presented at the exhibition had the afterburners present of not, as in the later experiments--Lsorin (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The "revert" was done in the accordance with the talk page. It was listed.--Lsorin (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Weymann and the selling of 'Coanda monoplane'

Romanian language extras from Cer Senin page 31. Pilotul Weimann îsi manifesta dorinta sa cumpere aparatul. Urma ca el sa fie supus probelor de zbor. - free translation to English The pilot Weymann expressed his willingness to buy the plane. It was going to undergo flight test. As well "Oiseau" _{(BTW who is this Oiseau guy anyway? This article is relevant but some John W. Lane of Great Bookham, Surrey is not relevant in the same magazine )} writes below on page 883 in the same article about the Coanda monoplane. From this statement is clear that "Oiseau" did not pay really attention to the plane and he mixed up the Coanda's biplane with some other monoplane sold to Mr. Weymann. Anyway there is no other reference in the news of 1910 or years after of any selling of Coanda-1910. So as per WP:GEVAL we either present the facts from the existing resources or we remove the selling story all together.--Lsorin (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• i agree to remove the Weymann story about he buyed the aircraft, there is no any sure thing about this, and as well the fact the aircraft was never saw again after Coanda fly test/crash is an indirect prouve it was destroyed back then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.45 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, Oiseau is a reporter working for Flight in 1910—that's why we use him and not reader John W. Lane.

In your Romanian source, what is their source? How do they determine what Weymann wanted to do with the aircraft? How do you jump to the conclusion Oiseau got it wrong? Why would you want to get rid of the one reliable source about Weymann just because nothing else can be found to support it? As well, nothing reliable can be found to dispute it. Gibbs-Smith gives the reported sale credence. We do not go by "indirect proof". Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian source reports that Weymann was interested in the aeroplane. Flight reports that Weymann bought the aeroplane. Together these two should add up to a sentence along the lines that Charles Weymann was interested in and purchased the aircraft. Now we don't know whether this was an agreement/contract to buy that Weymann or Coanda subsequently changed their minds over, or if it was conditional on something else that happened. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not mine Romanian source it is written for the public, by George-Paul Sandachi which is BTW the director of the Romanian Museum of Aviation. Now coming back to Oiseau. Could you please explain why is he talking about the Coanda monoplane? Gibbs-Smith nor Winter have touched this aspect in their rebuttals ( My personal assumption is because they were not neutral anyway in their analysis ). So conform to the almighty Wikipedia set of rules, all this aspects about the Oiseau's statements in the same article and the later historical entries like the one from the Romanian Museum of Aviation must be listed. Or we remove the sale statement all together as this is sounds is Gibbs-Smith and Winter (and today Binksternet) as a pure WP:REDFLAG case! That statement is very important for the later development of the events but is not supported by any other existing source and nobody can deny that there was quite some material written during 1910 and later years about Coanda-1910. So my proposals below in order of preference:

• Remove the statement of the selling of of Coanda-1910 all together. ( Only one contradictory source )
• Change the text like this: The full-size aircraft, the only one built, was reported sold to a "Mr. Weymann" in October 1910.[25] In the same article the author Ouiseau is making a reference to "the Coanda monoplane". The selling is not supported by any other material from 1910 and later years. According to the material in existence, the current assumption[3] is that the businessman and racing pilot Charles Terres Weymann may have been the subject of the report and expressed his willingness to buy the plane after some test were carried out.--Lsorin (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your option 1 - I don't see how a single source can be contradictory as there is no contemporary source that it contradicts. For the second option. The statement is right below the picture of the Coanda 1910, so your sentence "In the same article...." looks like an attempt to misdirect the reader. The start of the next sentence is (to my mind) SYNTH because its trying to use an absence of evidence to negate the statement. "the businessman and racing pilot Charles Terres Weymann may have been the subject of the report" would probably stand alone without challenge but could be diverted as a footnote, if we feel its too much of a link to make and should be left to the reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ouiseau makes is taking twice about the "large" Coanda "monoplane" and that "is entirely of wood". This mistakes shall be visible to the reader, to make it clear that Ouiseau was talking about some other plane or at least the information was quite mixed up in his mind.--Lsorin (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you can dismiss the parts of Oiseau which you find inconvenient while saving the parts which you agree with. Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So what is the right way to proceed? Do we remove any references from Oiseau or we list all the stuff written by him wrong and as well correct? --Lsorin (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Which bits of "Oiseau" are demonstrably wrong? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Oiseau" is reporting about the Coanda monoplane twice. Is is demonstrably wrong from any other existing source about this plane. Now is left to the reader to trust that the rest of "Oiseau"'s report is about the Coanda-1910 biplane, this whole Wikipedia article is about.--Lsorin (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet the aircraft is not a biplane, either, even though many have called it that. It is a sesquiplane. We can forgive an observer who considers the top wing to be the main or only wing, while the bottom wing may be considered a "winglet" or similar. The concept was very new. We can also forgive an observer who calls it a biplane. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So in your concept Binksternet any plane is flying because it has "winglets" which by some free lancers magazine writers specialists are called in some cases wings and at some magic size (existing only in their brain) not specified, those "winglet" becomes a wing and maybe a biplane and finally a sesquiplane. And by the way "Ouiseau" is still talking very clearly in the rest of the article about "the Paulhan biplane" and other monoplanes. Even in the page 881 "Oiseau" is putting very clear the term "Sloan Biplane" to a plane with a smaller "winglet" configuration on top even connected to the tips of the lower "winglet". If "Ouiseau" would have been really visiting the salon or he would have not mixed his notes on the way back to England, he would have been able to read at least the first page of Coanda's leaflet from the exhibition: it start's like this: "Aeroplane et Propulso-Turbine Coanda L'Aeroplane (biplane avec un fuselage, un empennage arriere en criox de Saint-Andree et une petit aile arriere)." I'm still wondering if Ouiseau got lost in translation and he managed to translate the French "biplane" to the English "monoplane". Anyway I see that some Wikipedia decorated editors, even today in the middle of the electronic information age, have problems with translations from the French "motor a reaction" to the English "jet engine".--Lsorin (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know when the term 'sesquiplane' was coined (maybe later than 1910?); however, it is simply a biplane with unequal-sized sets of main wings, but still a type of biplane nevertheless, so referring to a sesquiplane as one is not incorrect; merely imprecise, and Oiseau could be forgiven for doing so, especially if the term was not in existence at the time. But confusing 'monoplane' with 'biplane' is another matter entirely – very odd!--TransientVoyager (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Even odder when you consider the French equivalents for the terms are 'monoplan', 'biplan' and 'sesquiplan' – it's not exactly rocket science!--TransientVoyager (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of personal interest, I've been rooting through Flights archive to see if it says who "Oiseau" was. At some stages you have two writers "Oiseau Bleu" and "Oiseau Gris", the former was reportedly Jack Savage (MBE). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Graeme, now we have a choice of culprits, but I somehow doubt that Savage would have made such an elementary mistake! So who was "Grey bird" I wonder? --TransientVoyager (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The OED records the first use of "sesquiplan(e)" in 1921; definition is "A biplane having one wing of surface area not more than half that of the other.". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, so Oiseau would not have been able to use 'sesquiplane' at that time – IMHO the monoplane/biplane error is too fundamental to be down to lack of knowledge or understanding, and looks more like a case of sloppy checking before going to print! --TransientVoyager (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with sloppy fact checking, combined with less of a fascination with Coanda's entry than with other exhibit entries that Oiseau judged were more practical. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So why the selling of the monoplane to Weymann in not sloppy?--Lsorin (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That page consists of several photos, two of the Coanda plane, with the text underneath the top photo reading: "Side view of the Coanda aeroplane, upon the turbine-propulsion system and without propellers, at the Paris Flight Salon. This machine has been purchased by Mr. Weymann." To me, the copy editing appears to be poor, with the curious choice of "upon", but that does not take away from the ideas transmitted by the text. There is no mistaking which aeroplane was sold to Weymann, which is the point of this thread. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So if it "does not take away the ideas transmitted by the text", it means that a Coanda "monoplane" was sold to Weymann. I changed the text in the article to reflect that.--Lsorin (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Your edit is an attempt to make the reader think poorly of Oiseau or Flight. The specific page mentioning Weymann does not have the 'monoplane' word. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You propose that a solution to put the 'monoplane' in the text! And GraemeLeggett I did not understood your explanation for the revert. What do you mean by strictly its 'Flight' that makes the report. The author is some one called Oiseau and that author is making the mistake of referring to Coanda-1910 as to a 'momoplane'. I don't know about he reputation Flight magazine is the reader to decide not Binksternet nor GraemeLeggett as per WP:NPOV. So the ball in in your field. You come up with a proposal of how to present the Oiseau account who talks about the Coanda 'monoplane' sold it to Weysmann in the same article in the reputed "Flight" magazine full of "lions" or any reference to Ouiseau article will be removed.--Lsorin (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot that part, User:Amatulic, reminded me to explain myself here. In keeping with keeping things direct and to the point, the sentence as it stood said The full-size aircraft, the only one built, was reported sold to a "Mr. Weymann" in October 1910 which encapsulates two ideas; 1st that there was only a single example built, 2nd that it was reported as being sold. The 2nd is the key one, it states that report was made of it being sold. As phrased its meaning is less forceful than "the aircraft was sold" (my emphasis). Introducing the non de plume of the reporter - "Oiseau" - doesn't help the sentence because then we are faced with explaining "Oiseau" and do we explain him in the article so we end up with a longer sentence, or a footnote? It's not necessary to include "Oiseau" because he has the authority of Flight (which is an RS) as he is under its editorial control (unlike a writer expressing themselves in the correspondence pages or in eg an article on some topic). The citation states the publication already so further elaboration on the reporting is un-necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section so that my request will not by just ignored once again. Please come with a entry which explains the problem with that article in 'Flight'!--Lsorin (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well 29th October 1910 in Flight on one page "Oiseau" writes "...Coanda, a large monoplane constructed entirely of wood, has in place of the customary propeller a turbine.." On another page (below a photo) it says "Side view of the Coanda aeroplane, upon turbine propulsion system and without propellers... This machine has been purchased by Mr. Weymann". The two sections do not contradict each other and it is clear that the article is reporting on the subject of this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; a similar sentiment to that expressed by Binksternet further up! However, why it was described as a monoplane in the text we will never really know; maybe just a poor call regarding whether to categorise it as a biplane or a monoplane, given that sesquiplanes were not a distinct, recognised category at that time. --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If the reporter had some notes written on several planes and he mixed up the 'monoplane' really sold to Weymann with Coanda turbo-propulseur. How can somebody confirm that? If you agree that the plane was sold to Weymann than we can remove completely the whole article from Wikipedia as Gibbs-Smith already stated in his 1960 book and let's all call Coanda a liar since the age of 24 and call Oiseau the true authority in Coanda's monoplane. Maybe Coanda really did lie already in his leaflet and it was a monoplane, not a biplane! This will explain all possible lies found by Winter, Gibbs and decorated Wikipedia editors.--Lsorin (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your changes. Regarding the fact tag on "the only one built": Every source we have says that there was only one Coanda-1910. Every one. The second part of your change inserted 'monoplane' into the article but the aircraft described as sold to Weymann is so described underneath a photograph of the Coanda-1910. I see no need to poison the source when it is amply clear the aircraft in the photo is the one that was sold to Mr. Weymann. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You started to poison this article since you started to touch this article. I have nothing against Ouiseau, that's it is why I did not listed his name any longer in my last entry. The problemis that he made a mistake an that has to be visible to the reader of this article. Regarding the citation needed, please come with a reference where is it clearly written that Coanda-1910 was only one build. For instance the powerplant was not unique ( the sleds ). So please come with the citation and then I will leave it like that.--Lsorin (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attack on me, "you started to poison this article since you started to touch this article", is not true. I started to help it when I first touched it. It is in much better shape now, partly because of me. In the process, I have joined with other editors to improve the article, and our combined efforts have borne fruit.

I disagree that a copy editing mistake in Flight must be shown to the reader. A consensus of editors discussing it here appears to have formed, the consensus being that the mistake does not affect the article, and it certainly does not throw doubt on which aircraft was sold to Weymann, that aircraft being the one in the photo directly above the Weymann bit. Your aim is to discredit Flight so that the sale to Weymann will be questioned. This aim is against consensus.

As far as demanding a cite for there being only one aircraft built, I can only say that no source says it plainly in so many words, but they all use English constructions which imply it. I wrote the phrase "the only one built" to help the reader who will not be going to the sources to see constructions such as "the aeroplane", "his aircraft" "the 1910 aircraft", "it", etc. None of our sources says it explicitly, but all of them say it implicitly. I expect anyone questioning the existence of "only one" aircraft to cite more than one. "Only one" is the mainstream opinion. Binksternet (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The main opinion as well is that Coanda-1910 was the first jet aircraft! Why is than not presented correctly in this "much better shape" article. The selling of the Coanda-1910 is of very high relevance for the next steps leading to the tests and the crash of the plane. This is why this little 'copy editing mistake,' which by the way is your personal opinion in a neutral Wikipedia, and which is done twice in that article in 'Flight' is very relevant.--Lsorin (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The main opinion is that Coanda was of no importance to the development of the jet. A reader can look at a great number of books about jet aircraft and find no mention of Coanda. Winter points out that the authoritative Jane's All the World's Aircraft does not mention Coanda's turbo-propulseur at all, not in any of the annual editions, but that the reference book first brings up his name in 1916 in connection with Bristol. The 1916 Jane's wrote: "M. Coanda, son of the former Minister of War in Rumania, is one of the most gifted aeroplane designers, and for some years chief designer of the famous Bristol aeroplanes. During the war he has been doing valuable work for France." Winter makes sure that his readers notice that the turbo-propulseur is not mentioned, nor is the 1910 aircraft.

Winter also notes that Coanda and his aircraft engine are not mentioned at all in the exhaustive nine-volume work by Nikolai Rynin, a Russian engineer fascinated with jets, rockets and all forms of reactive propulsion. His 1930s encyclopedia discusses all sorts of little-known jet and rocket designers including Rankin Kennedy, A. Budau, Pul'k Rabek, and also René Lorin, the inventor of the ramjet. Winter calls the Rynin work a "veritable clearing house of information", yet it does not mention Coanda. I could list more books, but the ones selected by Winter have the highest reliability for us here, the highest because of the scholarly nature of the author, the article, and the journal that published it. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The "little copy editing mistake" was dismissed as unimportant by Gibbs-Smith and Winter. Both of them gave credence to the Weymann sale. We can hardly do better than these scholars. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I've reworked the lead to add a bit more detail and to address a few points without (hopefully) changing any intended meanings:

• ...the first aircraft used for testing of an early experimental jet engine infers that it may have been the first of several aircraft to test the same engine.
• ...the only aircraft without the usual propeller could mean the only aircraft with an unusual propeller.

*We shouldn't refer to anything in the lead that is not in the body of the article – neither "WWII" nor "motorjet" are mentioned in the main text. (OK, we could get away with using WWII I suppose)

Minor wording details really, ready to be shot down in flames and open to better suggestions.--TransientVoyager (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake – WWII and motorjet are mentioned in the main text! Doh!!!--TransientVoyager (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Down in flames"... heh heh. I tweaked your good wording a bit. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks – that's better.--TransientVoyager (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Made a few changes: Calling the Turbopropulseur an engine just doesn't seem to make sense. It's powered by an engine, it's not an engine itself. So I changed that to propulsion system(by the way, has anybody noticed that turbopropulseur means turbopropeller in French?). I also added "ducted fan" to the opening sentence, because it is argued to be a ducted fan(especially by people who have actually examined the patents), and the word which best describes his patents', and his own brochure's explanations of how this thing worked shouldn't be left out. This makes for a pro-jet biased opening. I also chenged the "after the invention of the turbojet" part to refer to motorjets as well. Otherwise it could give the impression that Coanda described it as a motorjet before motorjets were developed by others. Motorjets were well-known when Coanda started making his claims, and he definitely would have heard about them from his dear old friend Caproni. Comments anyone?Romaniantruths (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calling the turbo-propulseur an engine struck me as being a bit awkward too, but I didn't mess with it not knowing how best to address it without using "propulsion system" again. I have an idea for rewording slightly but that might constitute another revert?! I agree with you on your motorjet comment also; the article states that his claim to have invented the motorjet was indeed made in the 1950s when he would already be aware of them, not before their appearance.--TransientVoyager (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the term powerplant which I have piped to aircraft engine so that people do not think it means an electricity generating station. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The plane is not know for being the first sesquiplane. It is know for having experimented the first engine to generate "powerfull jet of air" ( Coanda's words from the May 1910 patent ) for propulsion. So I changed the introduction to reflect that. As well the engine was not containing just a fan in a duct as it was basically driven by the first turbo-charger application to an airplane engine. [7]. As well to be encyclopedic, the engine was first constructed and then later was argued about. --Lsorin (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I added as well a new section for the events leading to 1910. The glider of 1908 it does not belong to the "1910's".--Lsorin (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though it was not known for being the first sesquiplane, the word sesquiplane can appear in the first sentence—you did not have to remove it.

Regarding the engine not being "just a fan in a duct", your reference is John W. Lane of Great Bookham, Surrey. Who is that? Is he a greater expert than Stine, Winter or Gibbs-Smith? No, he is an unknown reader of Flight magazine who wrote a letter to the editor in 1952. The letter is well written, make no mistake, but Lane is not a known expert. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the bit supported by John W. Lane, the unknown reader of Flight. I have also removed the Walter Boyne cite which was supporting a fact removed by your introduction of the "Early development" section. Boyne was not supporting any of our text. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed the lead section from being a confusion of turbo-charged ducted fan (whatever that is) to the plain "experimental propulsion system":

Before

• The Coandă-1910 was an early aircraft that employed the first experimental jet propulsion system, later argued as being the first turbo-charged ducted fan. Designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, the sesquiplane aircraft featured a propulsion system composed of rotary fan blades driven directly by a conventional piston engine, for which Coandă used the term "turbo-propulseur".

After

• The Coandă-1910 was an early sesquiplane aircraft that employed an experimental propulsion system, later argued as being the first jet engine. Designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, the aircraft featured rotary fan blades driven directly by a conventional piston engine, for which Coandă used the term "turbo-propulseur".

I think the wikilink to jet engine should be plain, not hidden behind the phrase jet propulsion. The two things are very, very different in English, with jet engine having, in aviation, the strong connotation of combustion in the air stream, while jet propulsion is so general it can be accomplished in water. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

TransientVoyager this is the worst lead section of all. All the sources about Coanda-1910 admit in a form or another that at least it was the first plane to experiment something different than a normal propeller in this case to be propelled by jet. The main accounts from Stine, Winter an Gibbs all have is a form or another the same conclusion "first jet" - Stine, "first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" - Gibbs and "first full-scale (air) reactive-propelled machine" - Winter. This first needs to be reflected in the introduction one way or another. The rest of the topics,like it fly or not, the exact construction of the engine with the debates about the combustion in the air stream can be presented in the article. --Lsorin (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The actual Gibbs-Smith quote belies your use of him as a positive critic. 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." Gibbs-Smith classifies the Coanda-1910 as an attempt. Gibbs-Smith cautions that to be considered a true first, an aircraft must be successful, per Griffith Brewer who said "The meaning of the first flight is the first successful flight; otherwise it would include the first unsuccessful flight." I imagine Gibbs-Smith would have us write the word "unsuccessful" into the lead where it says the Coanda-1910 was the first whatever. In 1970, Gibbs-Smith in fact used the word "unsuccessful" to describe the Coanda-1910 (he said "inevitably earthbound" and "unworkable" in 1960.) You are picking out bits that look good, bits which are surrounded by "look bad".

Winter follows the words you quote with the caution that Canovetti might have been first.Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet make than a proposition which makes sense. Right now the introduction does not reflect any accounts of any of the references. Again I repeat myself: I'm not contesting that the plane did fly or not. What I contest is that is not presented as the first plane to at least test the first primitive jet engine! This is what Coanda wrote in the patent; he did wrote about the jet propulsion and nobody contested and can contest that fact.--Lsorin (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet it is not the first primitive jet engine. There is Canovetti to consider, and neither man made an aircraft fly with the engine. If it is supposed to be the first primitive jet engine, was it successful? No. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue in not about flying is about the construction. Leonardo Da Vinci invented the ornithopter but he did not fly with it ( still he was doing some tests with it ). Canovetti did not constructed the full plane. He had the intention to present something to Milano but he never did. So I try a new lead section now to reflect our discussion.--Lsorin (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin: "the worst lead section of all" covers every point you mention – All the sources about Coanda-1910 admit in a form or another that at least it was the first plane to experiment something different than a normal propeller in this case to be propelled by jet and This first needs to be reflected in the introduction one way or another.

From "the worst lead section of all" – The Coandă-1910 ... employed an experimental propulsion system ... featured rotary fan blades driven directly by a conventional piston engine ... later argued as being the first jet engine ... the only exhibit without a propeller. In a nutshell it was an aircraft built with an experimental propulsion system that did not use a propeller and which was argued as being the first jet engine!--TransientVoyager (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Boyne

• i added as well Boyne, as one of the most competent and knowledgeable source alongside Stine, and i think his opinion should be mentioned in the lead section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.41 (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At Talk:Henri_Coandă#Walter_Boyne I laid out how Boyne is not such a good source. Boyne does not give Coanda credit in any of his aviation history books—the only place you can find is the popular magazine article. Books are the better source. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Boyne's The Leading Edge quote that you put in the article gives a positive spin on Boyne's words by failing to show the whole quote: "Professor Henri Coanda, whose scientific work was impeccable, designed and built a jet aircraft in 1910; it, like Martin's Kitten, was superbly built and technically advanced—and could not fly." Your version excluded the conclusion "...and could not fly." If an engineer designs and builds something which does not work, is it the first one? No. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And again... I reverted your addition of Boyne because you did not bring his negative text along with his positive text. Also, your standalone paragraph did not fit with reading flow. Removed. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • This time I have left Boyne in, but I have fleshed out his contribution by listing his greater lack of contributions. I partially reverted some pretty bad English writing about Boyne's magazine article, leaving the concept of 'later' to show perhaps a vector of thinking by Boyne. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyne again! Lsorin reworked Boyne to make it appear that the man thinks highly of Coanda. This is not the case, or Coanda would have appeared as a foundational engineer in Boyne's many books about the development of the jet engine. Boyne is dismissive of Coanda, saying he "attempted to fly a primitive jet aircraft in 1910". After briefly mentioning this attempt, Boyne does not ever place Coanda in a key position relative to jet engine development. None of Boyne's books say good things about the Coanda turbo-propulseur, or about Coanda's contribution to the technology. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Gérard Hartmann on Clerget

In the book Pierre Clerget, 1875-1943: un motoriste de génie, Hartmann writes that the Coanda-1910 was tested by Coanda on the grounds of Issy-les-Moulineaux in December 1910. He writes of the engine that "La puissance est trop faible pour faire décoller du sol l'engin, mais cette expérience a le mérite de démontrer que le procédé fonctionne parfaitement." ("the power of the engine by itself was too weak to lift the craft off the ground, but this experience successfully demonstrated that the method worked perfectly.")

Is the 2004 book reliable? Google books lists it as "Juvenile Nonfiction".

Hartmann also wrote the PDF entitled Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche ("Clément-Bayard, without fear and without reproach"). This French language document says of Coanda (translated by Google):

      The Romanian engineer Henri Coanda (1885-1972) remains famous for having conceived in 1908, directed experienced in 1910 at the Clement-Bayard first jet-propelled airplane. The device works: in front of a fuselage turbine of 60 cm in diameter, driven by the engine via a gearbox mounted upside down (1800 engine turns, 4000 turns the turbine), hunting air sucked into the annular space surrounding the engine, the air strikes a baffle section airfoil whose leading edge generates a "vacuum suction".
      The intake air and exhaust air are mixed with gas exhaust contribute partially the effect of reaction. With 4-cyl 50 hp Clerget rotating at 1800 rpm, the surge in fixed point only 17 kg at 4000 rpm for the turbine, but Coanda discount take 24 kg in flight.
      In December 1910, after his presentation gear revolutionary Airshow, Henri Coanda the experiments on the ground-Issy-les-Moulineaux. The power is too low for take off the ground the aircraft, but it remains in flight when launched. This experience has successfully demonstrated that the method works perfectly. He would have had to turn the turbine more than 7000 rounds to have a force sufficient, running the risk that it explodes.

Here, Hartmann, adds more detail, saying the engine was too weak to take off but that it could keep the aircraft in the air after it was launched, the method of launching not specified. Hartmann does not give his sources in the PDF, but I assume that he is given a small amount of reliability since he is the author of the juvenile nonfiction book on the same topic.

What is weird about Hartmann's version is that the aircraft is supposed to be flying around Issy, a claim made by nobody else but him. Hartmann has it launched how? By Wright-style catapult? No detail supplied, and both Winter and Gibbs-Smith put a damper on supposition that such tests could have occurred at Issy without being reported. Maybe my translation is wrong; maybe Hartmann meant that the engine was calculated to have not enough power to take off but enough to sustain flight at speed with the Coanda effect going strong, and that further calculations put the required rpm at 7000 for take off power. If this is true, Hartmann is not saying that the aircraft flew, just that it was tested. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the google books classification "juvenile non-fiction" - google books is unfortunately riddled with errors of classification. It may be but it mightn't be non-fiction for younger readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've put that to one side - Hartmann seems to have his finger on the subject of early aviation in France, and is cited for this earlier aircraft, but the short section on the Coanda 1910 seems to make the water murkier when tied in with our grasp of French. The first bit on the engine seems clear enough - a gearing of 1,800 rpm to 4,000 (though that is in contradiction to what other sources have said). She second is open to different interpretations. As you have suggested 1) that the plane could not take off under its own power but after given a shove kept going while up there. 2) the results of the testing showed that it had enough power for sustained flight but insufficient for take off. Have you considered contacting Hartmann through the website (his email is listed) to ask if he has written anything else on the subject or could point you to the sources he used? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Having found the book at amazon.fr, I think we can discount the Clerget book as juvenile non fiction - 462 pages - though amazon.fr has it classified under the pharmacy sections of Scientific, Technical & Medical and University books! GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

and here is Hartmann's Affiches de l'histoire de l'aviation if you have 70-odd euros to spend. I think Hartmann is probably RS but we need better translations than machines can give or we have shall need to include the section verbatim within the reference so others can check it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the 7000 rpm into the article as it seemed relevant and interesting. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I reworded this section a bit and cited a ref, but the part about the flight in the presence of his mechanics only needs a cite so I tagged it. I also moved the 'sale' para to just before it for better flow, and addressed a bit of repetition regarding the Clerget – all subject to approval of course. ;-) BTW Binksternet, you were correct that the ref cited in my edit yesterday doesn't support the purchase as being prospective, so I shouldn't have used the term; nevertheless, the next sentence does state that it was conditional on further tests (presumably that it actually worked!). --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Winter's accont

Now that I managed to have access to Winter's full account, thanks to Binksternet, I have to add my comments. Overall it is the second best account, I do know about Coanda, material wise. Content wise, personally, I'm really disappointed on the account ( I know Wikipedia is neutral, so please take this only as a personal opinion ). It is written with the clear intention to show only one side of the story missing a lot of very important material, as an example Coanda's earlier work with rocket propelled models for instance. ( Winter is a rocketry historian, I even saw a picture with him and another multinational Romanian scientist, this time the "father" of rocketry Hermann Oberth, so at least I expect that he would have been interested). Below I will list some things Winter's account is very wrong and misleading.

• In fact the earliest appearance of the claim that the author has been able to find is dated 18th January 1956, when Coanda spoke before the Wings Club in New York City. It was already the jet age. Why had Coanda remained silent up till then? There were earlier accounts: for instance in 1944 and the first time when the Coanda's plane was listed as the first jet aircraft during the jet age is in 1950 ( L'aviation d'Ader et des temps héroïques, Raymond Cahisa, Clément Ader ). Why is this information missing from Winter?
• in La Technique Aeronautique for 15th April 1910 and devotes most of its text, formulas, and drawings not to propulsion There is an whole paragraph exactly at the end of the article were Coanda is putting emphasis on the turbo-propulseur. Maybe Winter's translation did not had that section in.
• Indeed, the Rapport Officiel sur la Deuxieme Exposition Internationale de Locomotion Aerienne, published in 1911, practically omitted the motor altogether In 1911 in his book "Bases et Methodes d'etudes Aerotechniques" - L. Ventou-Duclaux is creating a special category for Coanda's powerplant, the other two being the theoretical pure ramjet engine based powerplant of Lorin, and the propeller based powerplant. Coanda's powerplant was considered by the author as a mix of the first category a jet engine and parts of the other category, a reciprocal engine.
• but only in the inventor's mind Is Winter a psycho-analyst as well?
• But it was still inadequate and was still not a true jet. The formerly restricted 1946 report of the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of CalTech, entitled Jet Propulsion, sums up the whole contrivance neatly:

'The well-known Coanda machine, actually built in 1910 but probably not flown, was a mechanical jet propulsion device with a centrifugal blower (Fig. 14). The heat from the conventional engine driving the blower furnished auxiliary jet propulsion.' This is exactly what it was! A jet propulsion device. A balloon is a jet propulsion device as well. Coanda used the balloon principle for the first time on a plane. What I believe is wrong with Winter here is the fact that for him the true jet equals to turbojet. Coanda did not invent the true jet. He invented the first jet engine for airplanes not the true jet engine for airplanes.

• (it is interesting how the year 1956 seems to mark the latent discovery of Coanda's claim) Very weird Winter's statement here. Information about Coanda-1910 existed before that date. (see above)
• (­though Coanda had never flown in his life before) Coanda did fly before 1910 his own planes and gliders and he was even taking hours for a pilot license in 1910. ( like this account in L'Aerophile )
• The whole account of Major Victor Houart - is the weirdest part of the whole article. It is a linguistic and literary analysis and para-psychology investigation done by a rocketry historian, for which he spends one and half pages of the article. This whole analysis make sense only is Winter is his "neutral" approach on the subject is trying to destroy the evidence. Why an historian is doing that? A historian is supposed to list the facts "digged out from the dirt". Nothing more, nothing less.
• In 1910 it was known as a 'Champ de Manoeuvers', the Army restricting flying to special times. The Army too, reported nothing of the event I suppose this is copy-paste from Gibbs-Smith. Issy-les-Molineaux did belong to L'Aero club de France in 1910 not to the army. L'Aero Club de France was a bunch of enthusiast at the time, lead by Archedon.
• rare photograph of this most unusual ceremony and adds that it took place in 'the presence of half-a-­dozen clergy, a choir, an improvised altar A high caliber historian would know that such a baptising of a machine ( either car, airplane or ice-sled ) is nothing special in the orthodox countries. It is happening today as well in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and other orthodox countries. There a picture in Dan Antoniu's book with one of Coanda's airplane and the orthodox priests.
• Is it possible that the turbo-propulseur aircraft, which cost some one million francs of Coanda's own money, had been such an embarrassing failure, that he deliberately concocted a story which not only rescued the failure but practically immortalised him? - First not all the money were Coanda's own, proved by materials found by real aviation historians. Second Coanda never concocted a story. He was just asked in the 1950's about stuff happening 40 years earlier. Why would Coanda lie? Did he had access to all possible material written about his plane 40 years before, to find that his 'lie' would stand in 1950 and for posterity?
• Not a single word of Caproni ( Coanda was the best man at Caproni's wedding )

As a conclusion is really sad to see a historian writing such a biased article, so soon after the death of the main culprit and in such pseudo-scientific way with literal analysis of account and post-mortem psychology. And the main point: Winter is never stating that Coanda-1910 was propelled by a ducted-fan nor a true jet. He leaves the question Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? from the title basically unanswered which does not help us at all in finding, if this whole account is in synch with main stream or not. In the final analysis, the reader must ultimately decide for himself the validity validity of Coanda's basic claims, based upon the evidence presented here. and From the available records, we shall never know the answers for certain. Otherwise I agree is one of the accounts with the largest number of references to other Coanda-1910 accounts, even biased.--Lsorin (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And one more adding. Winter's article was published in the The Aeronautical journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, but it was mostly ignored and did not create any revolution in the Coanda-1910 acceptance from the main stream.--Lsorin (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

it may be that it is possible for us to find issues with Winter's approach but this does not mean we can necessarily discount Winter's treatment and, as it stands in the article, it is presented as Winter's analysis of the Coanda-1910.

I completely agree with you. Winter's is one of the most complete analysis, done for the rebuttal of Coanda-1910 and of course we need to use it in the article. My problem is that, this biased view of Winter's is currently the skeleton used for the Wiki article which is not exactly per WP:NPOV as it is not with main stream nor against it either, is kind of left in the air.--Lsorin (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The framework of the article is time: there is the early study, the showing of the aircraft, the making of the snow sled, the aircraft at Issy, the development of working jet aircraft engines, Coanda left out of history books, Coanda saying he invented the first jet, Gibbs-Smith debunking the claim, Coanda re-drawing the early patent diagrams, Winter debunking the patents, and finally modern observers and their incompatible thoughts on Coanda. What parts of this do you think are out of order? Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct schema:

• the early study
• the invention ( with Lorin and others designs in mind ) and the testing of the first jet engine
• the showing of the aircraft
• the making of the snow sled
• the aircraft at Issy
• the development of truly working jet aircraft engines
• growing interest in the jet engine designs and the stone writing of "jet engine"="turbojet" in English language only
• Coanda's details of 40 years earlier tests with the claims
• first rebuttal of Gibbs-Smith
• Coanda adding to the patent diagrams with details on the engine installation on the plane
• second rebuttal of Gibbs-Smith
• Coanda dies
• Winter article with a big entry question, but no conclusion
• Today's assessment in the aviation history books: ignored or listed as the first jet aircraft.

Coanda never left the history books I don't understand your entry.--Lsorin (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda never entered the history books until the mid-1950s after his public claim to be first with a jet aircraft engine. At that point he entered a few books and while many others continued to ignore him. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When was the first aviation history book written that included Lorin or Whittle or von Ohain or Canovetti? --Lsorin (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nikolai Rynin lists Lorin in his 1930s book. I bet Jane's lists the aircraft made by Whittle. Von Ohain I'm not sure which was first, as his aircraft was secret for a few years. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If Rynin wrote such a large encyclopedia (9 volumes) about space traveling, a real bible for rocketry as per Winter's account, how could he miss the rocket propelled models tested by Coanda in Romania as early as 1905 and 1907? As per Rynin, we need to remove Coanda-1910 from Wikipedia? I agree with that! I agreed with such proposal already, when considering Gibbs-Smith as the ultimate scholar of Coanda.--Lsorin (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You and I cannot know why Rynin did not put Coanda in his "exhaustive" nine-volume work on reaction propulsion. Maybe Coanda's efforts in that regard were not seen by Rynin as having any new influence. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is why my entry was a question. I cannot know for sure as I don't have those 9 volumes in my personal library. Still Lorin can be found on the net in Rynin's book [8], but regarding Coanda I could not find a single entry.--Lsorin (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I've got block for reasons which I still don't comprehend. Anyway regarding the latest mess done by Binskternt please check may talk page. ( regarding the patents and Harmann)--Lsorin (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My "mess" is only about improving the article. I imagine you don't like Winter because he doesn't conclude that Coanda invented the first jet. Dislike of Winter will not remove his detailed and excellent scholarship from the article. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You have returned patent 441144 and its later improvement to the article, but these patents are not about the Coanda-1910. Why did you bring these back after I removed them? No expert source has described them as important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy-paste from my talk page:

Again I have to write on this page as I'm blocked for not so clear reasons, against the latest statements of Binsksternet in the talk page. In the patent at paragraph 10 of the second page there is an entry stating: Les perfectionnements qui font l'objet de la presente invention ont ete presentes dans leur application a l'appareil Coanda qui ete expose a l'exposition de la Locomotion aerienne d'october-november 1910. In free translation to English: The improvements forming the object of this invention, have been presented as application to the Coanda device, which was exposed at "l'expositionde la Lomomotion aerienne" of october-november 1910. Is this enough to state that the additions releated the plane presented in this article which is now a kind of a "copy-paste" of Winter, which stated that the patents are identical?--Lsorin (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that patent related or not to Coanda-1910?--Lsorin (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My French is poor, but reading beyond the section you've quoted, it seems to relate to the fuselage structure (tubes d'acier - "steel tubes", l'amplitude d oscillations ) rather than the engine. Being an image of an ancient piece of print I couldn't expect to OCR and then machine translate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I though that Coanda-1910 article is about the plane's airframe with the engine as well, not only the engine. Do you wanna split the article in two articles Coanda-1910 airframe and Coanda-1910 jet engine? The entry in wiki article is He filed for several patents for the mechanism[12] and aircraft[13] on 30 May 1910, with later additions to the existing patents. [14] [15] [16] [17]. which I understand as airframe and the engine. As well the article contains Conada's sleds do you want a separate article for those as well? According to Gibbs-Smith's statements from '60, Coanda shall not be in any aviation history books as he had nothing to do with aviation and jet engine development! I proposed already this article to be removed from Wiki all together, as Gibbs-Smith is the only authority on Coanda, according to some Wikipedia editors..--Lsorin (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The largest mistake you are making is that you are weighing and judging the very complicated patent document, making yourself the expert. This is not allowed on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. You must find some experts who discuss the patents, and cite their analysis. Winter is one such expert, and he does not mention 441144. I must conclude that Winter did not think 441144 to be important to the topic, as his research was exhaustive.

The lesser mistake is that the patent 441144 is not about the Coanda-1910—it is about the 1911 aircraft, the one with two 7-cylinder rotary engines mounted back to back, at right angles to the line of travel. The later addition is about a wing section. At no place in 441144 does Coanda discuss the rotary compressor elements of his 1910 engine. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'm not an expert. So that is why I will add the Expert-subject tag back to the front of the article.--Lsorin (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You added the tag in this diff but the tag has not attracted any new experts in four days. How long should it be up? I think not long... I think that a Request for Comment is a much better way to cast a wide net. The 'expert needed' tag should be removed very soon. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

About the translation I suppose my English is not the good enough for you Binksternet to understand. So I will ask some native speaker of English to explain.

The improvements forming the object of this invention, have been presented as application to the Coanda device, which was exposed at "l'expositionde la Lomomotion aerienne" of october-november 1910.

What was the "Coanda device" presented at l'expositionde la Lomomotion aerienne of October-November 1910? Why Winter and Gibbs-Smith took the freedom not to analyze those patents to support their biased views on Coanda-1910, is their personal problem. Wikipedia in not a copy paste of Winter or Gibbs-Smith but it must be a neutral presentation of the mainstream opinion of the subject, which is that Coanda-1910 was the first jet airplane, with all possible references possible. I don't see any rule in Wikipedia that primary sources cannot be used. The rule is just that is not preffered over the secondary sources! So I really don't understand, why your personal rules become suddenly the Wikipedia rules?--Lsorin (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this? WP:PRIMARY says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:Identifying reliable sources#Some types of sources says "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." There are a ton of standard textbooks that do not mention Coanda at all, yet you continue to say that the mainstream opinion is that the Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane. Do you see the problem? It is not about my "personal rules", it is about the sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may chip in my two quid, I think the definition of "jet" is the problem here. It's clear that the Coanda was a ducted fan of some sort - but then so is a turbofan. It may have been a motorjet. But it was not a turbojet, which is what is meant by virtually everyone when "jet" is mentioned, especially with regards to "first jet aircraft". Whether ducted fan or motorjet, the Coanda is by no means the first jet per standard (and common) definition. It might well have been the first motorjet, though. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is mostly in English language because it is a very rich language especially regrading the technical terms with very precise meaning. Other languages like French and Romanian in this particular case have borrowed and lot from English and during the translation some of this terms don't fit perfectly. I gave earlier an example: the English technical term of today jet engine is translated directly to French in moteur à réaction or réacteur or simply jet. The same is in Romanian; jet engine translates directly to motor cu reacţie or motor turboreactor. If you translate any of those terms back to English you will get them always translated to jet engine. This is why you will never see a book written in Romanian and French languages telling that Coanda-1910 powerplant was what-ever-you-want-to-call-it but not jet engine. There is no doubt that Coanda's "turbopropulser" was build on air mass reaction principle and this is why most of the French/Romanian sources use the term moteur à réaction/motor cu reacţie. A Concorde or a Mig 21 are propelled with moteur à réaction and motor cu reacţie. If you translate that to English you get again the term jet engine. This is was all history books in French and Romanian are clearly stating that Coanda was the first jet engine after the translation. The problem with the jet engine translation to English is that, as I wrote below that today, virtually the term jet engine is equal to turbojet or better said it is written in stone. This mistake is made even by Winter in his account as his said that there is not one mention in all of the journals that fuel was injected into the system and burned in a combustion chamber as in a true jet.. What is that a true jet? He is using that term several times in his account. A balloon with a hole in it, is a jet engine and and true jet! What Winter is talking about is a turbojet which is just one type of a jet engine which again is just another category under the reaction engines. I don't think his mistake was intentional, but rather a miss. This is why this all confusion. I really think we need to add a section which explain this language differences to the reader otherwise always the same question is put back a forth by everyone.--Lsorin (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And more terms: In French avion à réaction translates to jet aircraft and vice versa. In Romanian avion cu reacţie or avion reactiv translates to jet plane or jet airplane and vice versa.

As well regarding the propulsion the French term: propulsion à réaction translates to jet propulsion and vice versa. In Romanian jet propulsion translates to propulsie cu reacţie and vice versa. Ragarding the terms jet-propelled or jet-propelled aircraft this again translates to the French term propulsé par réaction or avion à réaction and Romanian cu reacţie or avion cu reacţie.--Lsorin (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the propulsion. The English terms jet-powered, jet-powered aircraft or jet-powered plane are translated into French as à réaction and avion à réaction or avion propulsé par un réacteur.--Lsorin (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

patents and airframe

I'm subsectioning to make it clearer that we are not talking about "blocking" but about the aircraft. If the French patent 441144 is not directly giving information on the 1910 aircraft why don't find what we can from it that can be used to cover the subsequent activities of Coanda that relate to his experience with the 1910 aircraft. And can we think of a better section title than "abandonment" to cover these activities? We already have the motor sledge (possibly revisited when France was under German occupation). Patent 441144 seems - albeit phrased in patent legalese - to link his next aircraft with constructional methods he had used in the 1910 aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. It makes more sense from the chronological point of view as well. The problem I have with Binksternet edits was that he removed the references, because Winter's said they are identical.--Lsorin (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether we use primary or secondary sources becomes a much more closely examined one if the sources are not in agreement. In that case, the scholarly secondary ones are the best ones. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)