Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 2

RfC: How to present the controversy to the reader
There are conflicting sources for this aircraft. How should we present them to the reader? Should the facts that are disputed be presented as facts, then countered in a dedicated rebuttal section, or should the controversial claims be presented as disputed from the first, with no attempt to establish facts where sources are in conflict? Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed elements

 * Engine: Was it a ducted fan, turbine or motorjet?
 * Combustion: Did it have fuel injected into the airstream?
 * Flight: Did the aircraft actually fly, crash and burn, or was it simply exhibited?
 * Sale: Was the aircraft not sold whole to Charles Terres Weymann?
 * Finances: Did Coanda have enough money to build another aircraft immediately following his 1910 effort?
 * Time frame: When did Coanda begin to talk about this aircraft as an early jet?

Much of the arguments specifically about this aircraft have taken place at Talk:Henri Coandă. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment: I'm not sure I understand-- are there two conflicting sets of "facts", that are both complete unto themselves, or is there simply nebulous doubt about some of them? siafu (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Both, I guess, but mostly there are two sets of conflicting facts. Coanda presented the world with an interesting version some four decades after the aircraft's appearance in 1910, but I do not have a reference for the first utterance of this version where the aircraft had fuel injected into the airstream which initiated combustion. It took off on its first flight but crashed and burned with Coanda (the pilot) thrown clear of the wreckage. Coanda's version has been accepted at face value by some and scorned by others as a fantasy. His version mentions nothing about Weymann purchasing the aircraft at the Paris Air Salon of 1910 and his version says that he lacked funds to continue investigating the technology.
 * Henri Coandă's version: motorjet with fuel injection and combustion. Aircraft flew, crashed and burned. No mention of sale. Finances too low to continue.
 * Charles Gibbs-Smith version: ducted fan with no fuel injection and no combustion. Aircraft never flew. Sold to Weymann. Finances in good enough shape to exhibit a completely new and different aircraft in 1911. Time frame set as mid-1950s for Coanda version. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm starting a sandbox version at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet. I have a lot of work still to do on the article body, but the infobox and lead section are ready for comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The John W. Lane letter to Flight Magazine does have a serious problem: Is it reliable? The letters page is headed with a disclaimer that the editors of flight do not endorse the opinions of the letters printed, and as far as I know no evidence of Lane's ciriculum vitae have as yet been presented here. In addition there seem to be some fundamental problems with his reading of the patent. The patent he refers to is available on the "patents of Henri Coanda" link at the bottom of the Henri Coanda page, and according to the first paragraph of this patent it was given a May 30, 1910 priority date because it was the same patent Coanda applied for on that date in France. I couldn't find the original French patent on this site. Maybe it wasn't granted, or maybe it's just not available for some reason. However Coanda states in this patent that the exhaust is bled into the "turbine" intake for 2 reasons: 1,To reduce back pressure on the exhaust system.

2,To heat the intake air.

If the "turbine" is sucking the exhaust out of the engine it can't very well be powered by the exhaust as well. Either it's doing work on the exhaust, or the exhaust is doing work on it.

The heating of the intake air is a subject which Mr. Lane and the patent are in agreement, but according to both the air is being heated before it is compressed. It is difficult to see how this would increase the thrust as Coanda hoped. The heated air would be less dense at ambient pressure and less dense after compression as well. Wouldn't this decrease the mass of the exhaust gasses? (Of course, in a modern jet engine the heating occurs in a restricted environment where the gas cannot expand, so the pressure, not the density is increased.)Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's something else that's been bothering me. Early sources describe the plane as having an all-wood body(with the exception of the uprights supporting the wings),but the later jet stories mention plates of metal(or asbestos, or mica) to protect the airframe from flames. Shouldn't these be visible in a clear photo of the plane? Or at least mentioned by journalists who covered the 1910 Paris air-show?Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - part of the problem is the lack of a continuum of coverage. There are some reports in 1910/1911, and then the whole thing goes quiet until post Second World War. Identification of Weymann at gives a different tack to possibly follow as to what happened to the aircraft after the Paris Salon of 1910. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lack of discussion about the aircraft after its exhibition makes it very difficult to trace it. The lack is also damning, in that we do not see Caproni Campini engineers thanking Coanda's research for getting them started. We do not see acknowledgment from any aviation engineers until decades later, and I cannot ascribe that gap to earlier experts being dumbfounded by the advanced concepts shown by Coanda—those earlier experts were pretty sharp fellows. I can only assume that the engine didn't excite interest because it did not have combustion in the airstream, and because it did not propel the aircraft in flight. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

--oh boy, so the engine didnt excited the earleir experts because didnt had combustion on airstream (which is just a suposition of some Gibbs and co.), but all those sharp experts who saw that it doesnt have such combustion didnt think to add themselves some combustion there. Cool, but not quite sharp, didnt?
 * Weymann is only identified in Flight magazine by his surname, but at that time in France there could only be one Weymann so well known to Flight readers—Charles Terres Weymann—a famous aviator and businessman who had just won an air race in August 1910, and was seen around France from May to November that year. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Weymann from the Flight is the Weymann you say, things can be interesting. He died in 1975 in France, but even if Coanda was there too after WW II, and betwen his afirmation that the aircraft flew and crushed and the death of Weymann was more then 20 years, i never hear that Weymann contested Coanda words, and to say that is not true, or that he tooked the plane after Exposition. More then that, in one of the links provided previously it is said that a model of original Coanda-1910 and his story are presented on Le Bourget Air and Space Museum, i am sure those peoples there would asked Mr. Weymann about it, if the plane was in his posesion, but aparently they go with what Coanda said too. I didnt saw either Gibbs veryfing or mentioning Weymann about the fate of the plane (just that quote from Flight from 1910, where the plane is described as a turbine driven one with no propeller), but make his own assupmtion. Isnt that a bit weird, why Gibbs didnt asked him (there was too some 19 years betwen Gibbs article and death of Mr. Weimann), and first of all, why Mr. Weymann (a highly decorated french pilot and war hero) didnt contradict Coanda if the things was like Gibbs believed it was?
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|link=]] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.  man with one red shoe 18:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As well statements of Gibbs, that the flames from the engine will burn the plane and the pilot show that he didnt know exactly how the engine was, and made just supositions. And Coanda put those deflecting plates on the gases exhaust area precisely to deflect those flames away from the plane body. This is how he discovered the Coanda effect too, when for his surprise he saw that flames are not deflected, but they attached and curved around the deflecting plates, coming toward him. As well, the fact the the aircraft wasnt seen anymore again is a in my opinion a prouve that was destroyied in that short flight. If so, i think that guy Weimann will had them after the exposition, and it will be saw somewhere, sometimes later, at least pieces from it. And i think all those scientist and aviation historians made some researches too when write their books and articles, and will find if something was not as they said, find the plane or so, etc. And ones as Stine are definately very qualified (more then Gibbs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.73 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Gibbs and some articles from Flight after WW II (first mention in Flight said that Coanda-1910 was a turbine-driven aircraft with no propeller) are the only ones who doubt the jet kind of engine and aircraft made by Coanda, most of "the rest of the world" (i didnt put now the articles from Romanian Academy, need to search) agree that was a jet engine. Not a turbo-jet as ones made by von Ohain and Withle, but a more rudimentary one, with a kind of propeller instead of turbine, but neverthless a jet.


 * It is not just Gibbs-Smith who describe the engine as a ducted fan with no combustion but also Frank H. Winter of the Royal Aeronautic Society and the 1952 Flight letter writer John W. Lane. "The rest of the world" (whoever that is) may well be enchanted by Coanda's recollections in his old age, by his delightful story of jumping in the airplane as it was rolling and his reworking of the engine drawings. Those heat shields you describe are not visible in the photographs, so if they exist they are not large enough to protect the pilot from death by heat. Weymann could well have hidden the aircraft away himself, so there is no single answer for why it was not seen later. The only research that some aviation historians have made is to listen to Coanda in his old age—they did not look at earlier patents and popular descriptions, for instance, G. Harry Stine and Cornel I. Sultan do not list any sources from 1910s, only ones from the mid-1950s after Coanda began to tell his new story of the old airplane. I would be much more convinced if Sultan or Stine showed the reader a diagram of the 1910 patent and described the inner working of it. In that case, I would accept their views. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

---do you see, its like i said, Gibbs and British Institute (and some Flight articles, not even all) vs Americans, Romanians, Germans etc., all scientists, scholars and respected historians of aviation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.235 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look that way to me; as an aerospace engineer myself, I don't recall ever hearing of this aircraft as the first "jet engine", this honor was universally granted to the CC2 by my professors. siafu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting though that in CC2 article it's mentioned that " It has also been described as a ducted fan." man with one red shoe 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they'd both be wrong. The CC2 was a motorjet, neither a "jet engine" in the usual meaning and certainly not a ducted fan (Majority of its thrust came from combustion in the duct, not the compressor). It has some justification to being the first "jet aircraft" (an aircraft flying with thrust gained by combustion in a duct) but the engine wasn't especially novel for the time, except for the fact it made flights. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some one once told me that you aren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Who else calls it a ducted fan?Romaniantruths (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "ducted fan" description for the Caproni Campini N.1 (CC2) is cited on the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is cited to a book, but the citation only leads us to a commercial site selling the book. Are we, or are we not, expected to restrict our discussion to references which are available on the internet?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the publisher's website. Personally I have no problem discussing a source any source that I can get my hands on, but the internet ones are the ones most of us can get to. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that the commercial site in question is the publisher's website(Although I'm not exactly sure why this particular tidbit of information is germane). However I was under the impression that for the purposes of this discussion we were expected to restrict the references used to those which can be directly confirmed. Am I mistaken in this? Are we expected to believe any claims made if the claimant says he has a source, and that the source confims his views? A brief review of the references already presented here and the problems with some of them suggest that this could be a most counterproductive endeavour. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am only worried that using the engine patent that Coanda filed is a case WP:PRIMARY combined with WP:OR or in case a 3rd party refers to that patent a case of WP:SYNTH. In any case something is fishy from the POV of Wikipedia rules when using that patent in this discussion. I think we should use secondary sources that clearly talk about the Coanda 1910 airplane or engine not about the patent that might or might not reflect how the engine worked, in any case we shouldn't use the patent directly in this discussion. man with one red shoe 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that concern. Interpreting the patent directly is not on. Including that he filed patents on the turbo-propulseur is acceptable, but it would be wrong to assume that what was patented is the self-same thing that was on the front of the 1910 aircraft. We need a source to tell us that, and even if a source says that, it would still be wrong of us to directly interpret the patent, we need a (reliable) source to tell us what it the patent shows. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * John W. Lane clearly connects the patent with aircraft, stating that the described propulsion system was the aircraft's propulsion system. His reading of the patent is a secondary source. We can argue his expertise, but so far none of us know what that is. He sounds quite knowledgeable to me. It is likely the Winter article and the Gibbs-Smith book connect the patent directly with the aircraft but I do not have those sources at hand to prove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Break

 * Comment - (Edit conflict) I noticed the edit warring across several related articles and highlighted it at WT:AETF, it seems to have calmed down now. I meant to post some thoughts here a couple of days ago but here goes:

I have a very good book on jet propulsion: Smith, Geoffrey G.Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, London S.E.1, Flight Publishing Co.Ltd., 1946. It is only small but very well researched and comprehensive. Several pages are devoted to early attempts and being written much nearer the era of Coanda's invention I would have thought it would have been mentioned but it's not. In fact I looked hard through my many aviation books and can't find any mention of him or his inventions, his name did 'ring a bell' though possibly through the Coanda effect. Two inventors, Lorin and Morize are mentioned though with diagrams of their 'thrust augmentor' devices.

The warring (or discussions, however you like to phrase it) seems to be mainly over whether this is a jet powered aircraft or not. Smith sets out his definition of jet propulsion units into four groups (which still makes complete sense today), they are:


 * 1) Liquid fuel rocket (many argue that rockets are not jet propulsion)
 * 2) Continuous thermal duct or athodyd (Leduc projects)
 * 3) Intermittent impulse duct (V-1 flying bomb type pulse jet)
 * 4) Continuous turbine-compressor (the Whittle system) (i.e. the majority of the gas turbine engines that we have today)

As Smith doesn't mention it (and he travelled the world in his research) then I would conclude (using just that book admittedly) that the Coanda device was not 'jet propulsion', I'm sure that it would have been featured if it was.

My own gut feeling on the Coanda device (bearing in mind all the conflicting references) and without the benefit of a schematic diagram is that it is (or was) a ducted fan. If we could find a diagram of its workings I think that would help enormously. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * General comment: the absence from a book (no matter how good and complete that book seems) cannot be used as an argument to prove what something was or not. Also, I wonder where CC2 would fit in that list of four groups of jet propulsion. man with one red shoe 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that after that grouping division he goes on to say a number of sub-divisions and variations can of course be made to these four main classes. He covers the Campini system in some detail and treats it as a variation of the Whittle system (IC engine driving the compressor instead of a turbine). I'm not here to argue, it's a comment area where thoughts are expressed to help find a solution, I thought it worth noting that he doesn't mention the Coanda device, indeed it would have been nice if he had directly said that it was or was not jet propulsion but for some reason it does not get mentioned at all. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nimbus, your 1946 book predates Coanda making his claim, the exact date of which I am uncertain, but US and UK magazines begin talking about it in 1955, and Gibbs-Smith noticed it in 1956. Your 1946 author would not have heard the claim. As man with one red shoe says, it is impossible to prove a negative from Coanda's absence in even this apparently well-researched book. However, we can say that Coanda's 1910 engine is not mentioned in it. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment about disputed elements (Finances)
I want to thank Binksternet for organizing the discussion elements so nicely, I have only one comment, I think the "Finances" item should be taken off since it's highly speculative. He might have had the finances, but maybe he wanted to spend the money in a different way. It's not very relevant to the other issues that are important in the article. Post-fact finance situation doesn't bear any information regarding the airplane, whether it flew/crashed, and what type of engine it had, it's only a speculative argument of why he didn't continue to develop it (and it's probably, as often in life, only one element out of many in making a decision -- and most likely again a case of WP:SYNTH. man with one red shoe 15:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The finance issue impeaches the veracity of the various conflicting stories about the plane flying. Coanda's supporters 9or Coanda himself) used this lie to explain away the fact that he never bothered to develope his alledged Idea further. If elements of the story are provably untrue then that definitely indicates Poor research and lack of reliability on the part of the reporting party, or unreliability on Coanda's part if the claim can be directly attributed to him. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in any case another good example of WP:SYNTH. Basically it would be like this: Coanda declares that he doesn't have money to continue the research on this airplane, other source claims that he had money to do something else, therefore it results that Coanda has lied that he didn't have money to develop this airplane. That's a text book example of synthesis. Also, most importantly, there's only one person who knew if he had or not funds and that person is Coanda since this is a highly subjective matter. For example, I can say I don't have funds to buy a motorcycle, but then one year later I buy a car, that doesn't mean that I lied about the funds for the motorcycle, it either means that the money I had were not for that and I had different priorities or it might mean that I got money afterwards or it means that I took a larger loan than I initially intended. Interpreting my declaration as a lie 100 years later on it would be very speculative since that's not possible to prove even immediately after the event with the full information because as I said it's a subjective matter, it's only I who can decide if I have money for something, even if you check my bank account you can't contradict me, same with Coanda and his finances. man with one red shoe 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And incidentally, I wouldn't assume you lied about the funds to buy a motorcycle. I'd just assume that you realized the motorcycle's engine was a piece of junk and you decided, quite logically, to look into a more workable form of propulsion. (Not that I'd ever make the leap of suggesting that this is what Coanda did. That would be very wrong.Romaniantruths (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, actually it's more like this: Coanda claims years after the fact that his "funds were exhausted" but it is a provable fact that funds were available to him at this time. And Gibbs-Smith is not required to obey the rules for Wikipedia editors. He's a reliable source. You however, are required to not violateWP:Synth by equating his line of reasoning to your own experiences with transportation purchases.
 * I didn't comment here on what Gibbs-Smith claimed, I commented here about the elements listed by Binksternet and I explained why Coanda's finances shouldn't be discussed here... on Wikipedia, by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's rules. Also, Gibbs-Smith might be very well a reliable source in the field of aviation and engines, but I doubt he's a reliable source in the field of personal finance, or more specifically Coanda's finances and priorities. My comment stands I think that's subjective and shouldn't be introduced in this discussion. man with one red shoe 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Finance element is certainly something that is important in that it "impeaches the veracity" of Coanda's 1950s version of the story. Through the services of Gibbs-Smith we see that Coanda has delivered a lie: that he "wished to begin a second aircraft but his funds were exhausted." Gibbs-Smith doesn't overtly connect the Weymann sale as part of Coanda's financing but he says that Coanda's funds were not exhausted since he showed a "brand new" machine the next year. The Finance element shows that Coanda in his old age was capable of telling puffed-up stories unrelated to the 1910 truth. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It still sounds like a speculation to me. If Coanda showed a "brand-new machine" next year there's no telling where he got the funding from (maybe he didn't use his money) and even if it was build from personal funds there's no telling if this "brand-new machine" was not cheaper to build. Impeaching the character of a person on this amount of "proof" is a bit too much for me. Besides I don't think we are here to judge the Coanda's character, we are here to find and discuss what reliable sources say about his machine. His word would not be used a reliable source anyway, I think that as a general rule when somebody claims something we shouldn't take that as the Truth, we are here to see what the reliable sources say about the machine, not what they claim about Coanda's finances or truthfulness or reliability.... plus (again that darn WP:SYNTH he might have been unreliable about reporting the cause and his finances, but that doesn't mean that the plane was not a kind of jet. Plus we are not here in an American movie with jury where the lawyer shows how the witness is unreliable by asking him "have you ever lied?".... so let's get serious and drop this speculative red herring. man with one red shoe 04:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not go against WP:synthesis if Gibbs-Smith makes the connection for the reader. When Gibbs-Smith makes a speculation, it carries the weight of a person so expert in the field that he was knighted for it. Gibbs-Smith sees fit to tear apart Coanda's claim element by element. His arguments are all available to us. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned it's a speculation made by Gibbs-Smith who is not a reliable source when it comes to character or finances of the people, at most he's a reliable source regarding aircrafts. That being said we can quote him, but that's where we should stop, if we try to corroborate other sources regarding this then it would be WP:SYNTH that's why we should eliminate this element from this discussion, because beside G-S quote (which is a speculation) there's nothing else we could do about this subject. man with one red shoe 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "When somebody claims something we shouldn't take that as the truth..." you mean like Coanda's unsubstantiated claim that the 1910 was a jet, and that it flew on Dec 16, or maybe Dec 10, hitting a wall, or a tree, or crashing into the ground resulting in caonda injuring his wrist, or being burned?(choose the version you prefer) And your assertion that we are not allowed to use a reliable source to corroborate other reliable sources is puzzling in the extreme.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we shouldn't take Coanda's words as true, we can quote him but preferable we should base this article on reported facts. And yes, I meant that we shouldn't put together reliable sources to create a synthesis, that's how I read WP:SYNTH. But as you and Binksternet said the synthesis is made by Gibbs-Smith, my problem with that it's that it's a speculation as it necessarily is when people talk about other people's funds and priorities. man with one red shoe 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But OK, if you think that we need to examine Coanda's finances this is what I've found about his funds from an interview with him: Americans wondered how I financed the first jet aircraft and then I replied that: - I supported because I started to write - Uh, they told me, you are a writer? ... Say - Not ... ... I wrote my father! So if it weren't for him and my family, which was ruined, of course, I wouldn't have built the first jet Don't know if that's true or not, but this brings into questions how much Gibbs-Smith knew about Coanda family's financial situation, and the fact that he build another airplane afterwards is not conclusive, wasn't that the Bristol-Coanda monoplane? That was most likely financed by Bristol not from Coanda family funds. In any case as I said the financial part is necessarily a speculation and we should probably left it to rest since we are not going to prove anything. man with one red shoe 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the plane Gibbs-Smith mentioned was first shown in October 1911, Coanda was not hired by Bristol until 1911. Listing some sort of reference for the interview you posted would be helpful manwithoneredshoe.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those sentences are taken from an interview, unfortunately it's in Romanian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-k6RWDaNrI But you can have it translated by somebody who knows Romanian. So it's Coanda's word, who knew his personal and family finances and priorities vs. some guy in another country who noticed that he built another airplane shortly after Coanda 1910 (no mention if it was cheaper, if it was already in construction, etc. Plus, Coanda seems to have been a man of many interests, maybe he didn't run out of funds immediately after he built Coanda 1910 maybe he had enough money to finish another project that's a reasonable interpretation, that doesn't mean that he lied that Coanda 1910 brought ruin to his family and didn't have funds to continue the research on that type of engine. I think that Gibbs-Smith speculation shows a bit of bad faith from his part and doesn't paint him as a balanced observer. man with one red shoe 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not okay with taking away any mention of Coanda saying he had exhausted his finances. I think it adds to the mess of versions that surround Coanda. We can also say that Coanda's versions of the story do not agree with each other, or we can simply list them one by one, so that the reader can compare them and draw their own conclusion. It is essential to the encyclopedia article that we show Coanda's varying stories to be in conflict with observations made by reliable persons such as Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter. Coanda's statement about his finances is one of those essential elements. If he got money from his father to make another aircraft, why was it not a further revision of the 1910 engine? Why was it a conventional prop plane and not a ducted fan with heat exchangers and perhaps even a combustion chamber this time? Coanda's tone in his story makes it seem that exhausted finances were the only reason he did not follow up on jet technology, when we can plainly see that was not the case. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "If he got money from his father to make another aircraft" No, that's not what he said, he merely said his father financial support for Coanda 1910 was essential and he said that his family got financial ruined because of that. man with one red shoe 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And, what variable stories? You make a claim that he had many stories, what stories? man with one red shoe 04:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The other stories which are clearly described and compared for a few of their vast differences in the Coanda 1910 article that this is the discussion page for. If you want to discuss this article maybe you should read it.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And exactly why do you consider the above quote you added germane? Why does it matter how Coanda financed his 1910 ducted fan? Wether he got the money from his daddy, or won the lottery, or earned it in public restrooms it still has nothing to do with Gibbs-Smith's assertions about his finances after the Paris air-show.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coanda made finances an issue when he said that his funds were exhausted which is why he did not pursue the promising idea of jet engines. After Coanda put the issue in words, Gibbs-Smith gave his considered opinion as rebuttal: that Coanda's finances were not at all the reason why he did not pursue the airstream combustion technology that his 1910 engine almost embodied. Finances are one of the elements that Coanda delivered to the public and that Gibbs-Smith skewered as so much hot air. Of course we will include that part of the debate. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)