Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 3

Man with one red shoe and Romaniantruths
Please stop your sniping at each other on this talk page. If you have a problem to work out, work it out at one of the avenues suggested at Conflict_resolution. I am now removing such person-to-person comments from this talk page—any that are not part of improving this article. Do not add any more. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do so, you are free to remove anything that I wrote that you consider sniping at Romaniantruths. man with one red shoe 04:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Coanda or Canovetti invented it?
There is something else which must be considered. Whatever the turbopropulseur was, did Coanda actually invent it, or was he just patenting a specific design of an already invented and patented device? The Aeronautical journal Volume 84, page 412 article on Coanda says that this device was actually invented by Camille Canovetti:
 * "But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned. It was known that the Italian engineer Camille Canonvetti had been working along these lines earlier and eventally also built a full-sized turbine propulseur. His machine is depicted in L'Aerophile for 15th Decenber 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 apperance of the Coanda turbine at the Salon of Aviation in Paris in 1910 called general attention to these questions'
 * "So much for Coanda's priorities. Canovetti, incidentally, says nothing of any flights of Coanda's machine. Again arises the question: why isn't there a single word about Coanda's near-fatal accident in a most unusual machine..."

Read it here: | Romaniantruths (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Romaniantruths (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * hmm, an unsigned article from the same Royal Aeronautic Society which alongside Gibbs are from what i saw, the only big contesters of Coanda. Well, there is some articles in Flight too, where the redactions say anyway that they are not necessarily in agreement with what writers or columnists say, meaning that pretty much anybody can write something if it looks decent there. Your source is not pretty clear in what they said, Canovetti have an article presenting his engine at a year after Coanda for ex., and is nobody knows when he made that turbine engine, how it looks, and if was in any way similar with Coanda one.
 * Then the author fall back quickly to the same argue, that if Coanda have a flight or not. It is interesting as well that they find such articles (very debatable) about a possible other turbine engine, possible made before Coanda (yet no prouve for that exist for real), but nobody of those contesters (starting with Gibbs) bother to ask Mr. Weymann about that Coanda aircraft. And if very probably Mr. Weymann is the one mentioned by user "Binksternet", he died in 1975, and never said something against Coanda and his afirmations, but strangely neither was questioned by contesters of Coanda, who seems to avoid that (even if was one of the most important person in their case) nor the plane was ever saw again. And if it was destroyed in that crash, all make sense and its logic. 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was written by Frank H Winter, and he signed it as well. The reason your 'researches' don't show more people contesting Coanda's claims is thet all you do is google phrases like "coanda invented the jet", in reality many more people have written that ohain invented the jet than Coanda. Google that. Claiming the existence of articles in Flight magazine that support your claim is meaningless if you can't tell us what articles you're talking about. This is more especially true since you have made a huge number of provably false claims on this page already. Like how all your references are scientists and engineers who spent years studying Coanda's patents and diagrams. The source is clear on what it says, such as his filing a patents on this propulsion system in 1909, and that he was known to have been working on this system before then. And that this was the same principal Coanda would later unsucessfully try to use. Although I must admit that we don't have any proof yet that Coanda actually stole the Idea.
 * Your assertions about Weyman make no sense to me, but if you can find a reliable source that says Weyman never spoke to any of those people, and never said a word against Coanda's claims to anyone, including his closest friends, then I'll be glad to explain to you why it doesn't matter because neither of those situations would preclude Coanda not inventing the jet. And while you're at it, can you find a reliable source that says the 1910 Coanda was never seen again? That would be excellent evidence that it was a useless piece of junk and Weyman had it scrapped in disgust. Romaniantruths (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, you get me wrong. Those articles from Flight (which usual are against Coanda), well, about pretty much all articles of that type from Flight it is said by redaction that are not necesarily their POV too, or in agreement with them. It means that every writer or columnist say just he want, and it didnt means those for Flight are agree is true.
 * About Convetti, well, yes, maybe he said that, (that he had a patent in 1909), but he said that in 1911, at a year after Coanda. I should believe that, without to see that patent? I should believe that is a similar design with Coanda one? Thats just words from an obscure article, with no prouve.
 * As i said, the only contesters i saw are Gibbs, Royal Aeronautic Institute or how is named, and some articles from Flight. Surprise (or not), they are all english
 * Now about Weimann, well, Gibbs make an afirmation, that the plane was sold to him. But i didnt saw to Gibbs anything like a declaration from Weimann. Why? Weimann died in 1975. I am sure that if he tooked the plane he would be asked by frenchs, who made a copy of the plane and present its history of it at their Air and Space Museum what was about. And more important, by Gibbs, such a "gifted" (and i must say biased) historian of aviation who wanted to prouve something. I am sure that Weiman would say that he had the plane, he will make know about this, there was 20 years betwen what Coanda said and his death. But since i didnt find (and i am pretty sure you searched even more) any declarations from him that he bbuyed and take it the plane after Expo, it seem that only logical assumption is that things happened as Coanda said, and the plane was destroyed in that morining of December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.234 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot dismiss articles that are against Coanda just by saying that they are in this or that journal which is always against Coanda. As well, you cannot prove anything about Weymann by his silence. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i am not dismissing "apriori", i just make a constatation, that from the stuff presented here against idea of Coanda jet, pretty much all come from Gibbs (not quite reliable after all), Royal Aeronautic Society (english as well and probably influenced by Gibbs) and some articles from Flight (again an english magazine), but the redaction of Flight said they are not responsable or necessary in agreement with writers. I dont say that they are wrong from the begining, or something.
 * about Weimann, well, silence is an answer too. He didnt said anything against Coanda, the plane wasnt seen after the presumly crash from December 1910, a replica of the plane was made for the French Air and Space Museum and i am sure the frenchs had all the necessary documentation for that, and if was necessary they asked Weimann too, who was in France and was quite known. Gibbs on the other hand just mention him from that old Flight from 1910, but that was all, he didnt asked him directly about the plane, so ofcourse i wonder why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.239 (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weymann's silence cannot be used to prove anything at all; not your position nor my position. Weymann's silence means nothing to this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Jet100.com and www.afahc.ro
Please address all your questions to the officials http://jet100.com/ and "Henri Coanda" Air Force Academy

Lsorin (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not work like that. We look at reliable sources and compare them. If they differ, we present both versions with attribution. We do not try to determine which reliable source is correct so that we can present just one side. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So how do you prove that your version is true? With an article? The Aviation Museum in Bucharest and the Patent filled in France are artifacts, not some articles written by amateurs. Lsorin (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What amateurs are you talking about? Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was so expert on the subject of early aviation history that he was knighted by the Queen of England. Frank H. Winter is an ex-patriot Brit who settled in the United States to become historian at the National Air and Space Museum. He continues as curator emeritus. Both of these men wrote scholarly articles on the subject, raising serious questions about the most basic facts of Coanda's version of what happened in 1910.
 * What we do when faced with two diametrically opposed versions of truth, both with very reliable sources, is that we do not accept either version as fact and we remove any mention of the facts unless both versions are presented at the same time, with attribution. In other words, no single version of the story is going to be accepted as truth on Wikipedia, now that big guns have spoken on each side of the conflict. The only places where it will be appropriate to discuss both sides of the issue will be this article for certain, and perhaps the jet engine article or the Henri Coanda biography. Here at the Coandă-1910 article is the place where the most detailed arguments for both sides will be presented.
 * To emphasize my point, there is no place on Wikipedia where we will state flatly that one version is true. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you had a look at the link? It Identifies the May 1911 Swiss patent CH58323 as coanda's 1910 aircraft's propulsion system. The only drawing involving fuel injection I found was one that was drawn in 1965 according to the site. Their main assertion seems to be that Coanda made secret, never patented changes to the plane in May through December 1910 which made it a jet. However they don't seem to have any problem with the fact that he filed another patent on the original system the next year! They actually state pretty clearly( in spite of marginal English) that they're relying on Coanda's word about the fuel injection and combustion. It's a pity that this probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source, it would probably be useful to the non-jet point of view.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Discovery Civilization Channel video reliable source enough for you?

Lsorin (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the link you've given is to an edited video, and it also includes copyright material which is against policy. Are the words given the person's opinion or that of the programme makers? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the guys from the Discovery Civilization Channel can answer those questions.

Lsorin (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Aviation historian Dan Antoniu member of the Aviation History Section of the Romanian Academy just finalized a monograph on Henri Coanda titled "Henri Coanda si creatia sa din perioada 1906-1918" ISBN 978-973-7729-60-6, which right at the moment of this writing is being printed and will be published in few days, after several years of extensive research of artifacts from French Air and Space Museum, Bristol Aero Collection - Kemble and several Romanian Museums as I listed before. The authors: Dan Antoniu, George Cicos, Ioan Buiu, Alexandru Bartoc. They are very happy to be contacted directly!

Lsorin (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That Discovery video is nonsense—all it shows is a replica surrounded by theatrical smoke, a guy telling Henri Coanda's version of events, and a ridiculous sequence of a camera supposedly in the nose of the aircraft showing a doomed takeoff on concrete, when Issy in 1910 was a grass-covered airfield.
 * The presence of your various sources does not erase the sources which deny Coanda's claim to being the first jet engine builder. You can continue to pile up sources in favor of his claim, but you will not change this article from telling both versions to telling only Coanda's version. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read through some of the jet100 and see that there is a reference to Coandas's description of the (alleged) flight "FLYING Revue from 1956". Curious that wind tunnels were unknown then - perhaps he meant large scale ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wright Brothers built a small wind tunnel themselves, then a larger one in 1901. By 1910, seven years after Kitty Hawk, the popular story of the way they made their first flight would be well known around the world, including the facts that they made their own engine and their own wind tunnel. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well whatever Coanda meant - where would we find an accurately reported version of his account of the building and testing of the 1910 machine? It was of interseting construction even excluding the engine. Who reads French? (http://jet100.com/images/pliant1910.pdf) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a great looking brochure for the Coanda-1910! It is, of course, hopeful on some points, such as the 220 kg of thrust that it claims but which Bill Gunston doubts. I read a little French, but understand only at kitchen level. Here is what Google translator gives us for the first three pages:
 * "Aeroplane and Propulso-Turbine Coanda. The airplane [is a] biplane with a fuselage, a rear tail in the shape of St Andrew's cross [an 'X'], and a small rear wing. Wingspan 10.3 m maximum. 1.75 m depth wings. Length of the device 12.5 m. Airfoil total of 32 sq.m. Total weight to work with a 50 hp Clerget motor and a turbine propulsion: 420 kg. Construction details: patented wings, interior steel frame. Exterior entirely of highly polished and varnished wood. (Diagram of Airfoil Force: Three lines showing Speed 80 km/hr, 65 km/hr, 50 km/hr). Profiles, allowing a load of 33 kilograms per square meter of the center bearing surface, as determined by extensive testing with special equipment mounted on the tips of trains feeders specifically on this subject. Wing dimensions are unequal [a sesquiplane]. Under the wings of the air duct with ribs protruding. Construction of the tiny rear wing. Wings connected by tubes to the fuselage of steel [with a] profile of least resistance to the advancement without tension or cable. Center of gravity high enough to facilitate cornering.
 * More later... Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is the google translatre of the turbo-propulseur pages "In the center the front, the distributor of heat recovery heat exhaust gas, then the wheel's blades do not consist of three curves: one suction fitting of the second and third propulsion. The third part is the conical diffuser REAR. Performance was much higher the screw, do not vary in operation, pulling the turbo-propeller is absolutely independent of the translational motion of the airplane.

An opening in the iris has the front to regulate the entry of air and thus produces a change of speed for mobile progessive causes." GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dec 16 or Dec 10
Both of these dates are quoted for coanda's flight(Stine says the 10th, as do some of the pro-jet websites). Has anyone noticed direct quotes from Coanda as to the date? Later research quoted in the jet 100 reference says it rained on the 1st-15th, so if he said the 10th to Stine that doesn't sound very good. Do other Coanda quotes contradict this? Then again, if the field wasn't paved I suppose it might have been a little squishy on the 16th as well.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your man Frank H. Winters wrote in 1980 that the first story of the Coanda-1910 flying appeared in the mid-1950s and included no day at all, only the month and year of December 1910. Winter says that "a biographical piece on Coanda in Flying magazine for March 1967, is one of the few sources that states the date as being 10th December 1910. Why was the date not previously recorded—and entirely missing in the very detailed Houart narrative? Could it have been arbitrarily chosen to add authenticity...?" (The Aeronautical journal, Volume 84. Royal Aeronautic Society.) It seems to me that Coanda could have changed his story from 10 December to 16 December after he was informed by weather-conscious historians that the 10th was rainy, and the 16th clear. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So is his article available on the internet? I've only read what I could fish out at Google Books by subverting their copywrite protection scheme. But I haven't written up an algorythm to do it automatically so it's a slow process. From what I've seen he seems to be a regular gold-mine of early 20th century references on Coanda. Romaniantruths (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that my local university's Engineering Library holds the 1980 Royal Aeronautic journal that Winter published in, so all I have to do is get over there some time when I am not stuck working, and I will be able to copy it for reference. Perhaps by mid-October I will have found the time. I also sent Mr. Winter an email note to see if he can point me to any new published research, but he has not answered. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

References and Bibliography
Hello. I've given the references, notes, and bib a brush up. The bib appears quite long but someone else can decide if it needs pruning. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the bib is far too long, as some editors plopped sources there without using them as references in the article. A number of the sources simply parrot the more notable ones, lowering their value. I think it might just be possible to figure out which ones are the major references used by others, or the unique references with a specific slant, and throw out the others. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1-the ones who specificaly dealt with Coand and its biography, and have the technical qualifications able to understand the best about engine and the aircraft. Here i add Stine --http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/PAP/PAP-0672.pdf - in the bibliography of the article is mentioned <> and the phrase (quoting Stine) <> Stine worked with Coanda and had acces to all his documents and patents and have too the technical qualifications needed to understand well what was about. --then are this guys http://modelism.ro/images/coanda.JPG. One is Phd aviation engineer, and both have technical qualifications regarding aviation and are historians of aviation. There as well this ones http://www.dantoniu.go.ro/about_en.htm who have the same good qualifications and are very serious researchers and historians of aviation who write a book dedicated to Coanda as well, as the previous ones. I want to mention as well that when Coanda returned in Romania, he bringed too his personal archive, some 800 kg. of documents, sketches, drawining, calcultions, inventiosn etc., and after his death his family donate the archive to Romanian Academy and National Air Museum, and they researched there too.
 * well, i think the sources must be put in several categories

2-the ones who dealt with general history of aviation or of jet aircrafts. The most important here i think is Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum. He had at the museum pretty much all Coanda documents and patents, he had the technical knowledge and qualification and he, as the Stine too, said that: <<"Romanian inventor Henri Coanda attempted to fly a primitive jet aircraft in 1910, using a four-cylinder internal combustion engine to drive a compressor at 4,000 revolutions per minute. It was equipped with what today might be called an afterburner, producing an estimated 500 pounds of thrust. Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed.">> http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/January%202006/0106engines.aspx

--then are various historians of aviation, with less or more qualifications in technical fields, and who agree or disagree with Coanda as his aircraft from 1910 was the first jet, and even if it had a flight of not. Among them the one considered most proeminent from what i saw is Gibbs-Smith, an english historian of aviation who disagree with Coanda as being the first jet. He had no near the technical qualification of the previous ones, and had a various areas of interests, from history of aviation to Bayeux Tapestry or to Great Exhibiton of 1851 and was a stoutly defender of beliefs in parapsychology, flying saucers and ghosts among more sceptical colleagues. He make some assumption about Coanda and his aircraft who show some bias from his side, as saying that the engine doesnt had oriffices for the fuel to be added, but in the same time he said that if fuel was added to the combustion at the end, the flames who comes out will kill the pilot, so contradicting himself and showing that he dont know exactly how that engine worked, and if was added and ignited or not fuel in the exhaust mix. As well he mention an article from Flight 1910, where the aircraft is described as driven by a turbine engine with no propeller, and who said that plane was sold to Mr. Weimann (identified by an editor here as Charles Terres Weymann). However, even if Weimann was a known person and died in 1976, Gibbs didnt asked if he really took that plane after the exposition, or if the plane was destroyed as Coanda said. The fact that a replica of the plane is show at Paris Air and Space Museum, and the original story of the plane is depicted there too (in agreement with Coanda) and the fact Weymann never said anything against this, its a sign that at least french researchers too (and even Weymann) confirm what Coanda said.

--Another contester of Coanda is aparently Frank H. Winter, a british expat and former curator of rocketry at National Air and Space Museum in US. He was a former military journalist and obtain a degree in history. But he is no more qualified then other members of International Academy of Astronautics or American Astronautical Society who in at least 2 separate Symposiums of the International Academy of Astronautics (links was posted previous) stated that Coanda-1910 was the first in the world reactive and jet engine aircraft

--Other aviation historians (as can be see in links posted previous) agree too with this fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.91 (talk • contribs)


 * You are repeating some of your earlier arguments, so now I feel I must repeat the relevant ones of mine. Gibbs-Smith can have any number of other interests and still be the foremost British aviation historian, so expert that he was knighted for it. Gibbs-Smith did not contradict himself by saying that the aircraft had no fuel lines, then speculating what might have happened if it did (pilot burned and killed). That is a simple brain exercise, not contradiction. The silence from Weymann means absolutely nothing to either argument.


 * Boyne, Christy and other authors are countered by Frank H. Winter, historian at the U.S. National Air and Space Museum, who wrote a very detailed rebuttal in 1980. Boyne and Christy include no cited details in their aviation history about Coandă—they just trust the man to be telling the truth. Winter shows that trust to be misplaced, step by step, argument by argument.


 * Among the 800 kg of documentation I should like the Romanian historians to find something from the 1910s which shows that the Coandă-1910 flew, crashed and burned, and that it had fuel combustion in the airstream. So far, no source from the 1910s supports this assertion, only Coandă's words, and diagrams that he redrew in the 1960s. Even the jet100.com site says that its story is according to Coandă's words, not according to 1910 reports. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * everybody repeated mostly the arguments they come with first, but fact is that Coanda suporters are not just much numerous, but more reliable as well. With all respect for Gibbs, and i am not reffer now to his delusions with ghosts, he was good to find old pics and magazines, from aviation to tapestry, or info about old expositions, but he doesnt had anything near the technical qualifications of others. He made speculations because he wasnt sure about how that engine worked, ofcourse and since then he influenced as well the english Royal Aeronautic Society and i suppose even Winter. And my opinion is that he did that to keep somehow Withlle in the hig regard, and his opinion is held mostly by brits. Winter is not much better either, a former journalist of the army, with a degree in history. How is he more reliable then Boyne, colonel in air force and director of the Air and Space Museum? Or then Stine, rocket scientist and author of lots of books in astronautic domain, who studied a lot about Coanda and worked with Coanda, having acces to all his documents? How they are more reliable then romanian authors, most of them with technical qualifications in aviation and who had acces to all Coanda documents and archive?
 * And what reports you mention from 1910? There was no reports, just what Coanda said, and Weymann thru his silence and the disparition of the aircraft confirm what Coanda said. Gibbs had no idea what happened then, have no idea how engine worked, he make just speculations. About the patents with "turbopropulseur" of Coanda, you dont know if those are of the engine he used for Coanda-1910 or was another or simpler, less "dangerous" version, or that he make some modifications to that project. Thats just speculations, and thats why the ones who actualy studied the documents and archives of Coanda know better, and those are Stine and those romanian scholars who was mentioned previously. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.120 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be concentrating your efforts on taking down Gibbs-Smith and Winter, to show those men somehow unreliable. I see no compelling reason to remove these men from our list of reliable sources: they are very noteworthy in the topic of early aviation, and each one has examined in detail sources from the 1910s era. I am still waiting for a source that establishes Coanda's claim to be the first jet engine designer, a source from the 1910s. All of those reports depend directly on Coanda's own words. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not that Pro-Coanda references are more numerous, it's that you're trying to pile up as many references as you can, while we're trying to find the highest quality references we can. Most books credit either Von Ohain, or Campini, but listing the hundreds of books that say this is pointless. And do you have any evidence as to how much time Stine spent studying Coanda's work? He doesn't seem to have spent much time discussing him in that book of his. Or am I mistaken in this? Romaniantruths (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Winter, an english-american military journalist with a later degree in history (again, no technical qualifications) just repeat Gibbs assertions. Against this two quite not very reliable (one of them with his mind traveling in alternative worlds too) we have authors with more reliable qualifications regarding this problem, who had acces to all documents, patents and archives of Coanda and who specificaly dealt with him and only him (and not in general history of aviation books). So we have Stine <>, then this guys http://modelism.ro/images/coanda.JPG and this guys http://www.dantoniu.go.ro/about_en.htm Then we have others who, as Gibbs or Winter, dealt with aviation and science related subject in generaly, but are again more qualified then those two. More remarcable among them is Boyne, former Air Force colonel and director of Air and Space Museum, this guy http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~csultan/, http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/coand%C4%83.htm, and a series of other aviation historians who was posted here, all at least as qualified as Gibbs and Winter. As well, in two separate symposiums of International Astronautics and Aeronautics Academy was clearly stated that Coanda-1910 was the first jet in the world (hope this guys are reliable enough). Btw, for english only speakers who have a silly anglocentric POV, the word "jet" and especialy "jet"-engine, dont exist in many other languages, and what they call "jet engine" is called "reactor/reactive engine" by french, romanian or russian. So, i think is better to eliminate Gibbs as source, he is not reliable and clearly a delusional person (dont know why some peoples keep saying he was knighted, as that make any impression to a cold mind thinking person?) who probably just tryied to keep Whitle as the first person related with jets. Winter just repeated mostly what Gibbs said, and neither have the necessary technical qualifications, not near as Stine for ex., or even Boyne. So in a top of reliable and competent sources the ones who say that Coanda-1910 was the worlds first jet are cleary first (and more numeruous) and that is need to be clearly stated in the article, if wikipedia want to be correct, clean and with a NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.187 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets face it, Gibbs was a nut and a delusional person who strongly believe in ghosts, paranormal and flying saucers (funny, Coanda actualy have few patents of flying saucers starting with early 1930). He was drived too by a kind of nationalism (trying to keep Whitle as the first who made or invent a jet engine), he doesnt had a complete or deep study of Coanda and what hapened in 1910, he just mention him in a more general book or small articles. He was good at fiding old photos and search in archives for dates, or recognized planes, but was as good too to tapestry or history of some world expositions, and worked in Public Relations Department. He doesnt had technical qualifications, nor was good to read or understand much about engines. He write about some patents of Coanda from 1911, called "improvement of a propeller", which is not sure if was used for Coanda-1910, or if Coanda used a modifed version, but he renounced to add fuel, due to disaster which happened during that flight (and when he actualy discovered the Coanda effect, or you contest that too?). Gibbs make just supositions as well about the engine, if it had orifices for fuel, or if what can happen with the flames and pilot if fuel was added. But the discovery of Coanda effect was done exactly because Coanda tryied to avoid the exhausting flames. More then that, Gibbs mention that the aircraft was sold to Weymann (says Flight magazine from 1910), but even Mr. Weymann was a known person well and alive (he died actualy in 1976) Gibbs didnt asked him about the aircraft, even if that will solve the suposed mistery. And, ofcourse, as i said previously, Weymann never said he actualy took that plane from Coanda, nor contest Coanda afirmations (made publicly in France, where Weymann lived), nor the aircraft was ever saw again after that accidental flight and crash.


 * You are trying to assassinate the characters of Winters and Gibbs-Smith, a tactic which I understand because they are giants in their field and they say that the Coanda-1910 never flew, and never had combustion in the air stream. They are the strongest obstacles to your version of the truth. You will not succeed, however, in making either of them sound unreliable. You clearly have no concept of how expert Gibbs-Smith was in his aviation studies, how thorough in researching aviation articles and facts. You clearly have not read the Winter article where he describes each of his sources (not a parroting of Gibbs-Smith) to say that no report of the aircraft flying was made in December 1910. Winter looked through French newspapers from that whole month and came up empty—no flight by Coanda, no test, crash, burn of Coanda-1910. He found the German article containing a cutaway view and description of the Coanda-1910 engine, and it obviously carried no fuel injection into the air stream. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And above this two (Gibbs and Winter) we have real scientists who studied both the documents and have the knowledge in technical domain to understand them, like Stine, and Boyne (who writed that articol in 2006, Stine in 1989, so quite long after Gibbs or Winter). Btw, i saw you erased the part about Boyne i mentioned on Henri Coanda page, as well some stuff from an article with his water desalinization sistem? I saw you are a bit frustrated, but i may ask for another reason, a pertinent one for why you did that?
 * Hahaha, you're a funny man. If Gibbs or Winter are giants in the field, i am an soviet cosmonaut just returned from a trip to Jupiter. Gibbs was not just a little crazy and weird, believeing in ghosts and talking with spirits, and seeing flying saucers (maybe he really saw some of Coanda documents and realizations after all), but he clearly doesnt had technical qualifications to talk about engines and technical characteristics. Fact that he was knighted because he dealt well with photos of old aircrafts, Bayeux Tapestry and World Expositions and was good to Public Relations means nothing to me, or to any person who have a cold, less impressionable mind. Nor the military journalist who aquire later a degree in history, Winter. Gibbs was drived too by the idea of eliminate competitors for Whitlle, his fellow englishman. He is not a more reliable source then any romanian authors presented here, but quite contrary, all of them are more qualified in this field then him, and have too access to much more documents.
 * Winter interpretations of sources are ones of a historian with no imagination and no vision (to not say with a bias too). Do you really think that in a cold morning of December, in an era when aircrafts just apeared and was just few, there was many peoples (or someone) at that field, and especialy some journalists? And how do you think that the aircraft was never saw again, and Weymann never said that he actualy buyed and tooked the plane? In a link provided previously there is show too an aircraft made by Coanda in 1911, who was done too with what was left from the "Coanda-1910" (tail part mostly) after its crash. And how you think that Coanda would come up saying the plane crashed, knowing that in fact it was sold to someone who can say anytime what really happened? How the famous Gibbs didnt ask Weymann about that? I tell you why, he just tried to eliminate Coanda as the inventor of jets, on behalf of Whitle and never go too deep with researchers, nor he had the necessary qualifications, just make some silly assumptions (if it had or not fuel added, or what happened if the fuel was added). He is definately not a reliable source, and Winter is clearly under Stine and Boyne (and those from International Aeronautics Academy or romanian scholars) as both technical knowledge and study of documents in existance. He might be qualify as a secondary importance source, and Gibbs to be eliminated, or this is mostly a joke of article.


 * To try and downplay the authority of historians Gibbs-Smith and Winter in regard to this topic is an impossible task. Their two investigations were very thorough, and Winter even looked at the 1965 versions of Coanda's engine diagrams, comparing them with older versions. Winter and Gibbs-Smith are superb expert references for this article. If you disagree, try asking at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm done listening to how the two men were crazy, or driven by patriotism, or less expert than others. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And all i said about Gibbs and Winter is true, i am not try to downplay anything. You can show me some Gibbs qualifications regarding technical stuff? Something near to Stine, Boyne, Craciunoiu, Antoniu, Sultan? I think not. You deny that his main job was in Public Relations, and he dealt with a variety of things, from Tapestry and World Expositions to photographies of old planes? You deny that he was a delusional person who believe in ghosts and talking with spirits or reading mind from distance or whatever else he consider? I think not You can deny that Winter was a journalist for the army, who later take a degree in history? I think not. You can compare him as competence in technical fields with the ones i mentioned above? No. You can deny that Stine, Craciunoiu and Antoniu had acces to all Coanda documents, patents and archive, but neither Gibbs or Winter had? No. So what we talking here? Is this a serious discussion about sources competences and reliability? You are able to think at cold, or just have a single idea incastrated in your mind, and you are not ablle to get rid of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.47 (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, stop erase mentions as ones of Boyne or others stuffs about Coanda inventions, its just stupid, pathetic, it makes the article about Coanda just a POV of some detractors of him and not with a NPOV who present all that is possible about him, and you just enter head on in a war you cant win, making in the same time Wikipedia to not be a reliable source (and this is most of the time correct, due to actions like yours).