Talk:Coandă-1910: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:47, 10 July 2024

Coandă-1910 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
October 10, 2012	Peer review	Not reviewed

Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coandă-1910 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 30 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Chancellor of Germany#Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)|Chancellor]] The anchor (#Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Caondă 1910

User:MilborneOne Okay, WHY did you delete it? Was there any reason whatsoever? Any good, real reason? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I have never edited this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not this one, the Jet aircraft one. There was a ton of reasons for the Coandă to be there, yet you deleted it. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for comment and improvement of the related article Coandă-1910 so your question is not relevant here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ducted Fan

I removed the wording "Ducted fan". It was powered by a centrifugal compressor exausting through a duct. There is no other example of a ducted fan in similar configuration in the scientifical literature. If you would like to keep it, please come with similar examples Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Florin Baiduc[reply]

So it can't be a unique example of a configuration? That's no reasoning at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term comes from our sources which discuss the aircraft, not from looking at the parts and guessing what they should or should not be called. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources using the term "centrifugal compressor" ^[1]

We should use the best available term describing what it is, especially since the current dispute is due mainly to bad nomenclature. Mihaiam (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Coanda-1910.html

You think a self-published paper model website is a reliable source? Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's proof this is the term currently describing the device.

There are a lot more such sources while "ducted fan" is seldom found outside this Wikipedia page ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

I dont't think a misnomer used by some journalist in 1910 should be taken as authoritative. Mihaiam (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian book, self-published by authors Florian Ion Petrescu and Relly Victoria Petrescu, reveals that the Petrescus are promoting Romanian inventors without any attempt to be neutral. For instance, they tell the reader that Coanda says he made a brief flight in December 1910, with the aircraft destroyed in a crash, but the Petrescus fail to inform the reader that Coanda fabricated the flight – he never attempted to fly this aircraft. Let's not turn this article into a vehicle for Romanian nationalists. Binksternet (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't tell such a thing, they merely listed Coandă's much later claim without endorsing it.

The exact wording is: "Decades later, after the practical demonstration of motorjets and turbojets, Coandă asserted that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream. He also said that he had made a single brief flight in December 1910 crashing just after take-off, the aircraft destroyed by fire"

Naming the device what it is, a centrifugal compressor, have nothing to do with Romanian nationalism since it makes the plane even more unlikely to be capable of flight while ducted fans are workable solutions still in use.

Please don't confuse this small naming issue with the much more incredible claim of Coandă to have fuel injection and burning in the compressor at the time Mihaiam (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ducted fan, again

Please stop defining Coanda's plane as propeled by a ducted fan!!. His plane was propelled by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compressor can not propel without one. Florinbaiduc 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a centrifugal compressor. However that is a subset of ducted fans, not something using a "completely different principle".

Coanda's innovation was to enclose the turbopropulseur in a duct, thus becoming a ducted fan. He also (inferring from the 1912 patent) used a design that was aimed at compression more than simply accelerating a mass of air, as a propeller does. This does not stop it being a ducted fan though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a subset of a ducted fan! a ducted fan can propel without the duct. a centrifugal compressor not.--Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to your attack on me, and editors generally, " Amazing how some people lack the education to see this difference!!" then that is irrelevant (it also fails WP:NPA and you don't even know what education other editors have either). We work by independent sources here, not the personal opinions of editors. The sources term this a "ducted fan".

Your claim, "A ducted fan can propel without the duct" is particularly odd. A ducted fan without a duct is no longer a ducted fan, so what does that show about anything? Also if the duct is (I would agree) more important for producing thrust with a compressor than with a propeller, then why does that make a compressor-in-a-duct less appropriate to use the term than a propeller-in-a-duct? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy: a ducted fan is a propeller in a duct, and can propel without the duct, because it sends the air towards the back. A centrifugal compressor send the air radially towards outside, and does not generate thrust without a properly shaped case. A trivial, albeit critical difference. I tried to explain it a number of times, only to get the changes reverted without explanation. That is also known as vandalism! --Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don't even understand what a duct is, or the effect it has on Reynolds number, which is the reason for using a duct in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're claiming it's a motorjet, which is a clear falsehood. Much of this article is given over to debunking that claim of Coanda's from 1956. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming anything, but a motorjet is a better definition than a ducted fan, as it is nearer to the physical principles behind it working...There is nowhere else in the literature a claim similar to yours, calling a centrifugal compressor a ducted fan. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, but extraordinary claims must be baked by extraordinary evidence --Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you appreciate what a motorjet is? That it is a motor-driven compressor, followed by the combustion of fuel? Do you claim that Coanda was burning fuel in the duct of the 1910 aircraft? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centrifugal compressors are not just a subset of ducted fans. They use a different kind of fan, centrifugal as opposed to axial. ^[4]

Either way, the most specific term, "centrifugal compressor", should be used. Mihaiam (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coandă's device was both a ducted fan and also a centrifugal compressor. Its action (as a 'propulsor') was that of being a ducted fan. Its detailed implementation may have been a centrifugal compressor (it was either a centrifugal compressor, or at least a centrifugal fan), but that doesn't stop its main function. It is definitely not a centrifugal compressor, as applied to gas turbine engines.

It's not clear if this was a centrifugal compressor (i.e. with compression) or merely a fan (accelerating the air without significantly compressing it). We don't have a surviving example, I'm unaware if accurate replicas have been tested for this, and it's not the sort of thing which can be proven merely by looking at a presumed drawing of this time.

But what is clear is that its function, and how we have to primarily describe it, is as a ducted fan. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'propulsor' was most certainly a centrifugal compressor and patented as such at the time. ^[5]

It also was not just a ducted fan, having elements ducted fans lack like a diffuser.

If it's function should give the name we could just name it a jet engine, it's intended action being the same.Mihaiam (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a diffuser visible in the patent drawings. Nor is one an essential part of a ducted fan (although it would improve efficiency, it's still a ducted fan without).

In no way is this a jet engine, as it's not an engine (it produces no power). It's a power-consuming fan, driven by a Clerget piston engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a diffuser to a ducted fan in order to slow the flow and increase the static pressure makes the whole apparatus a centrifugal compressor.

I don't think it would improve propulsion efficiency, quite the opposite. Mihaiam (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Here is the best source for "ducted fan", coming from a modern engineer and writer, published in the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine. See Coanda’s Claim by Frank H. Winter. The article appeared in December 2010. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article also name it a "super vacuum cleaner" in the same breath. I don't think it intended to be a technical description, rather it used some common analogies.Mihaiam (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice etc

I have read the discussions here and added an edit notice and some hidden text to the article. See if that makes any difference. --John (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

In the Memorials and models section, it mentions a 10-leu coin and a price of 220 leu. In Romanian, leu is singular and lei is plural. The correct usage should be a 10-lei coin at a price of 220 lei. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.11 (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it now says lei. Thanks for the correction. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there is a 1/10 scale model on display at the ICAO museum in Montreal i forgot to note the inscription but it does mention the 2nd International Aeronautical Exhibition and refers to the craft as the first jet plane mike(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Coanda-1910.html

[2] ttps://books.google.ro/books?id=_x89AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=coanda+1910++compressor+centrifugal&source=bl&ots=W1pbMZtAme&sig=ACfU3U1ftij-7xbS_a52xddC1BsWMOwyew&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2leWHtbjhAhWPfFAKHTTNC80Q6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=coanda%201910%20%20compressor%20centrifugal&f=false

[3] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/270530302_COANDA-1910_-_the_first_jet_propulsor_for_airplane

[4] ttps://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=682

[5] ttp://www.savioclima.com/en/axial-fans-and-centrifugal-fans-comparison

[6] ttps://blog.exair.com/2018/12/13/henri-coanda-june-7-1886-november-25-1972/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{ArticleHistory
-| action1       = GAN
+|action1=GAN
-| action1date   = 10 February 2011
+|action1date=10 February 2011
-| action1link   = Talk:Coandă-1910/GA1
+|action1link=Talk:Coandă-1910/GA1
-| action1result = listed
+|action1result=listed
-| action1oldid  = 413058696
+|action1oldid=413058696
+|action2=PR
+|action2date=03:24, 10 October 2012
+|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Coandă-1910/archive1
+|action2result=Not reviewed
+|action2oldid=516936454
-| currentstatus = GA
 | itndate       =
 | dykdate       =
@@ Line 12: / Line 17: @@
 | topic         = engtech
 | small         =
+|currentstatus=GA
 }}
 {{Talk header|search=yes}}
-{{WPAVIATION|class=GA
- |b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
- |b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = yes
- |b3 <!--Structure              --> = yes
- |b4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = yes
- |b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = yes
-|Aircraft=yes}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{aan}}
@@ Line 26: / Line 25: @@
 |counter = 11
 |minthreadsleft = 4
-|algo = old(20d)
+|algo = old(30d)
 |archive = Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days }}
 {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
 |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
 }}
 {{British-English}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
+{{WikiProject Aviation |b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
+ |b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = yes
+ |b3 <!--Structure              --> = yes
+ |b4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = yes
+ |b5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = yes
+|Aircraft=yes}}
+}}
+{{Broken anchors|links=
+* <nowiki>[[Chancellor of Germany#Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)|Chancellor]]</nowiki>  The anchor (#Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1006165023|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)","appear":{"revid":287283448,"parentid":287283264,"timestamp":"2009-05-01T17:20:57Z","replaced_anchors":{"Chancellor of the German Empire":"Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)","Chancellor of the Weimar Republic":"Chancellor of the Weimar Republic (1919–1933)"},"removed_section_titles":["Chancellor of the German Empire","Chancellor of the Weimar Republic"],"added_section_titles":["Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)","Chancellor of the Weimar Republic (1919–1933)"]},"disappear":{"revid":1006165023,"parentid":1005603629,"timestamp":"2021-02-11T12:09:26Z","removed_section_titles":["Chancellor of the German Empire (1871–1918)","Chancellor of the Weimar Republic (1919–1933)","Chancellor of Nazi Germany (1933–1945)"],"added_section_titles":["Chancellor of the German Reich","Under the Emperor (1871–1918)","Weimar Republic (1919–1933)","Nazi Germany (1933–1945)"]}} -->
+}}
+== Caondă 1910 ==
+[[User:MilborneOne]] Okay, WHY did you delete it? Was there any reason whatsoever? Any good, real reason? [[User:Romanian-and-proud|Romanian-and-proud]] ([[User talk:Romanian-and-proud|talk]]) 18:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
+:As far as I know I have never edited this article. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
+Not this one, the [[Jet aircraft]] one. There was a ton of reasons for the Coandă to be there, yet you deleted it. [[User:Romanian-and-proud|Romanian-and-proud]] ([[User talk:Romanian-and-proud|talk]]) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
+::This page is for comment and improvement of the related article [[Coandă-1910]] so your question is not relevant here. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
+== Ducted Fan ==
+I removed the wording "Ducted fan". It was powered by a centrifugal compressor exausting through a duct. There is no other example of a ducted fan in similar configuration in the scientifical literature. If you would like to keep it, please come with similar examples [[User:Florinbaiduc|Florinbaiduc]] ([[User talk:Florinbaiduc|talk]]) 21:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Florin Baiduc
+: So it can't be a unique example of a configuration? That's no reasoning at all. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
+:The term comes from our sources which discuss the aircraft, not from looking at the parts and guessing what they should or should not be called. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 21:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
+::There are sources using the term "centrifugal compressor" <ref>http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Coanda-1910.html</ref>
+::We should use the best available term describing what it is, especially since the current dispute is due mainly to bad nomenclature.  [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 10:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
+{{reflist-talk}}
+:::You think a self-published paper model website is a reliable source? [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 13:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
+:::* It's proof this is the term currently describing the device.
+:::There are a lot more such sources while "ducted fan" is seldom found outside this Wikipedia page <ref> https://books.google.ro/books?id=_x89AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=coanda+1910++compressor+centrifugal&source=bl&ots=W1pbMZtAme&sig=ACfU3U1ftij-7xbS_a52xddC1BsWMOwyew&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2leWHtbjhAhWPfFAKHTTNC80Q6AEwDnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=coanda%201910%20%20compressor%20centrifugal&f=false </ref>  <ref> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270530302_COANDA-1910_-_the_first_jet_propulsor_for_airplane </ref> <ref> https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=682 </ref>
+:::I dont't think a misnomer used by some journalist in 1910 should be taken as authoritative. [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 07:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
+::::The Romanian book, self-published by authors Florian Ion Petrescu and Relly Victoria Petrescu, reveals that the Petrescus are promoting Romanian inventors without any attempt to be neutral. For instance, they tell the reader that Coanda says he made a brief flight in December 1910, with the aircraft destroyed in a crash, but the Petrescus fail to inform the reader that Coanda fabricated the flight – he never attempted to fly this aircraft. Let's not turn this article into a vehicle for Romanian nationalists. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 07:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
+::::The book doesn't tell such a thing, they merely listed Coandă's much later claim without endorsing it.
-== ArbCom ==
+The exact wording is: "Decades later, after the practical demonstration of motorjets and turbojets, Coandă asserted that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream. He also said that he had made a single brief flight in December 1910 crashing just after take-off, the aircraft destroyed by fire"
+::::Naming the device what it is, a centrifugal compressor, have nothing to do with Romanian nationalism since it makes the plane even more unlikely to be capable of flight while ducted fans are workable solutions still in use.
+::::Please don't confuse this small naming issue with the much more incredible claim of Coandă to have fuel injection and burning in the compressor at the time [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 09:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
+== Ducted fan, again ==
-Now at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Henri_Coanda_defamation]]
+Please stop defining Coanda's plane as propeled by a ducted fan!!. His plane was propelled by a centrifugal compressor. It's a completely different principle than that of a ducted fan! Check the drawings and pictures of Coanda's engine, then look at some ducted fans (propellers within a duct). A ducted fan can propel without the duct, a centrifugal compressor can not propel without one. {{u|Florinbaiduc}} 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
+: Yes, it was a centrifugal compressor. However that is a subset of ducted fans, not something using a "completely different principle".
-[[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
+: Coanda's innovation was to enclose the turbopropulseur in a duct, thus becoming a ducted fan. He also (inferring from the 1912 patent) used a design that was aimed at compression more than simply accelerating a mass of air, as a propeller does. This does not stop it being a ducted fan though. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
+Actually it is not a subset of a ducted fan! a ducted fan can propel without the duct. a centrifugal compressor not.--[[User:Florinbaiduc|Florinbaiduc]] ([[User talk:Florinbaiduc|talk]]) 13:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=415729511 Case declined], with declining arbitrators recommending lower level remedies. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
+* As to your attack on me, and editors generally, " Amazing how some people lack the education to see this difference!!" then that is irrelevant (it also fails [[WP:NPA]] and you don't even know what education other editors have either). We work by independent sources here, not the personal opinions of editors. The sources term this a "ducted fan".
-:I asked [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Risker#Henri_Coanda_defamation][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Feb#Coanda-1910] for lower level methods without reply ( the general "ignorance" phenomenon that cripples WP ). As [[User:Newyorkbrad]] proposed the case to be opened again in "two weeks" I will do it, as soon as I have time. --[[User:Lsorin|Lsorin]] ([[User talk:Lsorin|talk]]) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+: Your claim, ''"A ducted fan can propel without the duct"'' is particularly odd. A ducted fan without a duct is no longer a ducted fan, so what does that show about anything?  Also if the duct is (I would agree) ''more'' important for producing thrust with a compressor than with a propeller, then why does that make a compressor-in-a-duct ''less'' appropriate to use the term than a propeller-in-a-duct? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
+Easy: a ducted fan is a propeller in a duct, and can propel without the duct, because it sends the air towards the back. A centrifugal compressor send the air radially towards outside, and does not generate thrust without a properly shaped case. A trivial, albeit critical difference. I tried to explain it a number of times, only to get the changes reverted without explanation. That is also known as vandalism! --[[User:Florinbaiduc|Florinbaiduc]] ([[User talk:Florinbaiduc|talk]]) 13:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-::The same case in two weeks, submitted to the same committee will hardly give you different results. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+:: Then you don't even understand what a duct is, or the effect it has on [[Reynolds number]], which is the reason for using a duct in the first place. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-::: Taken to ArbCom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Henri_Coanda_defamation_-_second_try again].--[[User:Lsorin|Lsorin]] ([[User talk:Lsorin|talk]]) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
-::::I expect the same result as last time; nothing has changed. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
+* And now you're claiming it's a [[motorjet]], which is a clear falsehood. Much of this article is given over to debunking that claim of Coanda's from 1956. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-{{od}}
+* I'm not claiming anything, but a motorjet is a better definition than a ducted fan, as it is nearer to the physical principles behind it working...There is nowhere else in the literature a claim similar to yours, calling a centrifugal compressor a ducted fan. I know, it doesn't fit your agenda, but extraordinary claims must be baked by extraordinary evidence --[[User:Florinbaiduc|Florinbaiduc]] ([[User talk:Florinbaiduc|talk]]) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-'''Congratulations''' to [[User:Binksternet]] and [[User:Andy Dingley]]. Now you have the full ownership of the article and I have the proof the Wikipedia does not work. Good luck in becoming the full owners of the whole "free" Wikipedia! --[[User:Lsorin|Lsorin]] ([[User talk:Lsorin|talk]]) 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
+:: Do you appreciate what a [[motorjet]] is?  That it is a motor-driven compressor, followed by the combustion of fuel?   Do you claim that Coanda was burning fuel in the duct of the 1910 aircraft? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-== The "first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" ==
+::: Centrifugal compressors are not just a subset of ducted fans. They use a different kind of fan, centrifugal as opposed to axial. <ref>http://www.savioclima.com/en/axial-fans-and-centrifugal-fans-comparison</ref>
-That's Gibbs-Smith's description of the Coandă-1910. As far as I can see from this article (and I haven't done much reading elsewhere), nothing is more negative on the question of what Coandă actually achieved ''except the lead of this article'', which can easily be read to suggest that he did nothing at all, outside of his own imagination.
+::: Either way, the most specific term, "centrifugal compressor", should be used. [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 09:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
+:::* Coandă's device was ''both'' a ducted fan and also a centrifugal compressor. Its action (as a 'propulsor') was that of being a [[ducted fan]]. Its detailed implementation may have been a centrifugal compressor (it was either a [[centrifugal compressor]], or at least a [[centrifugal fan]]), but that doesn't stop its main function. It is definitely not a centrifugal compressor, as applied to [[gas turbine]] engines.
+:::: It's not clear if this was a centrifugal compressor (i.e. with compression) or merely a fan (accelerating the air without significantly compressing it). We don't have a surviving example, I'm unaware if accurate replicas have been tested for this, and it's not the sort of thing which can be proven merely by looking at a presumed drawing of this time.
+:::: But what is clear is that its function, and how we have to primarily describe it, is as a ducted fan. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 20:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
+::::* The 'propulsor' was most certainly a centrifugal compressor and patented as such at the time. <ref>https://blog.exair.com/2018/12/13/henri-coanda-june-7-1886-november-25-1972/</ref>
-I understand how we got here - and this is one of the more regrettable effects of applying Rumanian patriotism to the question: it makes for a net negative tone in response to exaggerations - but is it where we want to be? Can we adopt GS, or some equivalent, into the lead? We should certainly go on to assert that there is no contemporary evidence it ever flew, as GS also says; but shouldn't we begin with what the subject did do?  [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
+::::It also was not just a ducted fan, having elements ducted fans lack like a diffuser.
+::::If it's function should give the name we could just name it a jet engine, it's intended action being the same.[[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
+::::* There is a diffuser visible in the patent drawings. Nor is one an essential part of a ducted fan (although it would improve efficiency, it's still a ducted fan without).
+::::: In no way is this a [[jet engine|jet ''engine'']], as it's not an engine  (it produces no power). It's a power-consuming fan, driven by a Clerget piston engine. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 12:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
+:::::* Adding a diffuser to a ducted fan in order to slow the flow and increase the static pressure makes the whole apparatus a centrifugal compressor.
-:Sure, we can give the inventor credit for his known and agreed-upon achievements in the lead sentence. How about this change?
+::::: I don't think it would improve propulsion efficiency, quite the opposite. [[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 13:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
-:*Current: The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was an early sesquiplane aircraft which featured an experimental aircraft engine that was later argued as being the first motorjet engine.
-:* Gibbs-Smith credit: The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first full-size attempt at a jet aircraft. Built as a sesquiplane, it featured an experimental aircraft engine that was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
+{{reflist-talk}}
-== reference ==
+{{od}}Here is the best source for "ducted fan", coming from a modern engineer and writer, published in the Smithsonian's ''Air & Space'' magazine. See [https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/coandas-claim-73647227/ Coanda’s Claim] by Frank H. Winter. The article appeared in December 2010. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 08:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-In case this is useful:<br>
-Antonescu's Eagles against Stalin's Falcons: The Romanian Air Force, 1920-1941<br>
-Alexander Statiev<br>
-The Journal of Military History<br>
-Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 1085-1113<br>
-(article consists of 29 pages)<br>
-Published by: Society for Military History<br>
-{{JSTOR|3093265}}<br>
-Quote:
-:SINCE man's first flight, the Romanian public has shown a keen interest in aviation. Romanian sources maintain that a Romanian was the first to build an aircraft able to take off without the assistance of auxiliary equipment. In March 1906 the Romanian engineer Traian Vuia took off from a field near Paris in an airplane that he had designed; he covered a distance of twelve meters.' Though Romanian propeller aviation was not marked by further impressive developments, Romanians also claim the invention of the jet airplane. In 1910 at the Aeronautic Salon in France, the Romanian engineer Henri Coanda demonstrated an aircraft allegedly powered by a jet engine. Whether this aircraft ever actually flew is not clear, nor is the impact of these events on world air technology. Nevertheless, they took a distinguished place in Romania's national heritage.  Aviation enjoyed high prestige in Romanian society.
+:* The article also name it a "super vacuum cleaner" in the same breath. I don't think it intended to be a technical description, rather it used some common analogies.[[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 09:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-Article goes on to discuss the Romanian air force and doesn't say any more about Coanda.
+== Edit notice etc ==
-[[Special:Contributions/128.32.112.233|128.32.112.233]] ([[User talk:128.32.112.233|talk]]) 03:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
+I have read the discussions here and added an edit notice and some hidden text to the article. See if that makes any difference. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-:Twelve meters is a hop, not a flight. You can fly a barn door for 12 meters if you push it hard enough. Vuia deserves a very, very small credit but he does not take the place of the Wright brothers, whose first flights did not use any auxiliary equipment. Later, they began to use a catapult-type device ''for convenience'', not necessity.
-:Regarding Romanian national thought about Coanda, we have quite enough of that. The source you offer does not give us anything new. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
+== Edit request ==
+In the Memorials and models section, it mentions a 10-leu coin and a price of 220 leu. In Romanian, leu is singular and lei is plural. The correct usage should be a 10-lei coin at a price of 220 lei. Thank you.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/137.95.1.11|137.95.1.11]] ([[User talk:137.95.1.11#top|talk]]) 12:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== [[:File:Coanda 1910-Antoniu Collection.jpg]] ==
+:{{done}}, it now says lei. Thanks for the correction. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
+there is a 1/10 scale model on display at the ICAO museum in Montreal i forgot to note the inscription but it does mention the 2nd International Aeronautical Exhibition and refers to the craft as the first jet [[User:plane mike|plane mike]]([[User talk:plane mike|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Isn't it a free image since its copyright must have expired? It is over 100 years old. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)