Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 5

Edit request 3 from Lsorin, 1 October 2010
Finally the newest book "Coanda and his technical work 1906-1918" was just published today. The book has a large section about the Coanda-1910 based on the most extensive material available to date. (the cover)

Lsorin (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * . There is no actual request here to modify the article. Please use the editprotected template for specific requests to edit the article with specific text. For other discussions, just use this talk page as you normally would. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some remarks too. For ex., why was choose that version to be protected for an edit? It is not at all the best, and have several biased portions. I suspect that an older editor, Binksternet, influence this, and others here, acording with his own wishes and disregarding even the NPOV.
 * for ex. this part of the article: <> -Its missing precisely the most important description (on which we argue here), that the engine was described as an "jet engine" too. Itried to edit this, and let just the contemporary source (Flight magazine from 1910) who described it as a "turbine engine with no propeller" but again that was reverted, without ofcourse to be added any jet engine mention
 * another thing which i dont get, is why the article/link and the part of page with Walter Boyne (former director of Air and Space Museum) statement was removed, instead the mentions of less reliable persons with clearly less qualifications regarding technology field are still keept (gibbs, Winter)? Is this normal? I know wikipedia is regarded as less reliable, or unreliable, even by wikipedia standards, and this is precisely because such actions took by ones who can edit and then protect their own editions, done acording with their own wishes or ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.171 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why this version was protected? It was my administrative decision, somewhat arbitrary. I tried to pick a point between some constructive edits and obvious edit warring. If there is consensus to work from a different version, I'm happy to restore the article to that point. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the problem is that is not any consensus with the article you protected now. Even clear and well established facts are ignored there, because didnt fit with the wishes of some editors, and one of the most reliable and qualified sources (as Walter Boyne, former director of Air and Space Museum) is totaly ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lsorin, 2 October 2010
Proposal for the introduction:

The Coandă-1910, was an experimental aircraft build in 1910, the first jet-propelled aircraft. It was powered by an experimental, more rudimentary type of jet engine with a turbine driven from a conventional engine. also called "airjet", "thermojet" or motorjet.

Lsorin (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the terms "motorjet" and "thermojet" are in dispute. The wikilink to jet engine is misleading, as all aviation jet engines have combustion in the air stream, but this one has been said by Gibbs-Smith, Gunston and Winter to have had no such combustion. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bisksternet, a copy from the Jet engine article:
 * "A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast moving jet of fluid to generate thrust by jet propulsion and in accordance with Newton's laws of motion."
 * There is no mention of combustion in the air stream or anything like this in the definition. The edit is correct from the jet engine definition point of view. To render it incorrect, you have to change the definition of jet engine in Wikipedia.
 * As well the Coanda 1910 powerplant fits to the Encyclopedia Britannica definition:

"jet engine, Jet engine. any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid, usually hot exhaust gases generated by burning fuel with air drawn in from the atmosphere."
 * What can be added is the explanation that in today's terms the general English term "Jet Engine" is synonymous to the English term "turbojet": "the essentials of the modern turbojet were contained in a patent in 1930 by Frank Whittle in England" (extract from Encyclopedia Britannica).


 * Same definition in Merriam Webster dictionary.


 * The English term "motorjet", "thermojet" was introduced later ( a book ) after the first turbojet were in use. (extract "Unlike the turbojet, pulsejet, and ramjet, a single concise name for these hybrid jet engines was never really universally accepted. They have been called motorjets, hybrid jets, piston-jets, compound engines, ducted fan engines, reaction motors, and thermojets.")

--192.100.112.211 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All very interesting, but this does not erase Gibbs-Smith and Winters who say the engine was not a motorjet and was not a thermojet. Your edit request asks for these words to be inserted, and I disagree with your request. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your own entry Binksternet above: "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)"
 * As well I explained in the section that non of us really understands the workings of the powerplant including the "turbine". My entry above: "By the way did you know that Coanda made his plane in Gianni Caproni's atelier? And he was a very good friend of Secondo Campini which build this thing? I think you can see the connection alone to the 'termojet'." explains it.

As well Gibbs-Smith and Winters are not neutral in their articles when 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.
 * I a previous entry I made especially for you Binksternet I said: "If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Why you did not comment anything there? Coanda make is very clear that his powerplant in not a "turbine" or "fan" just parts can be compared! --Lsorin (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit requests should be made for non-controversial or consensus-based changes. An edit request shouldn't start a debate, but rather be the end of a debate. When you guys can agree on the wording, please post another request. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Binskternet will never propose any new wording of the introduction section because he is very fine with the one reverted by you. As well Binskternet will never agree with any of my wording, as he constantly ignores all my comments and explanations ( about the engine, the sources he's using and historical context of all issues surrounding this airplane ). That is why if you Amatulic you want to really prove that you are neutral than I propose to revert at least the introduction to the most stable version ( it was untouched for the last 7 year until Romaniantruths edited the first time 27 of July 2010 ) and start the discussions from there.

--Lsorin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith about other editors, don't speak for them, let them speak for themselves.
 * Furthermore, I have no need or desire to "prove" I am neutral. I don't care what changes go into the article. My only interest here is in seeing consensus for those changes. That's why I protected this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * i think Lsorin is right, and the most stable version mentioned by him must be the base for start the discussion, and to be protected until the discussions are done and even a slightly consensus will be achieved. If not, is just an article who reflect the wishes of couple guys who have the power to protect their own editions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifications
Lsorin (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the thrust figure is disputed. I propose that no thrust figure be listed in the specifications. The reader will have to go to the text to find out what it was said to be at the time, and whether that was accepted by experts. Binksternet (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The thrust figure is copied from the 1910 leaflet as it is. Check the last page of the leaflet. This cannot be disputed. It can be disputed why Gibbs-Smith never touched that topic in his documents (not neutral).

--192.100.112.211 (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a figure for thrust as such in the pamphlet - the last page appears to read "Trials have given up at present about 220 k traction for 50 HP". Is the thrust value derived from that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit of school: 1 Kg force = 9.81 Newton. In the pamphlet k is Kg. ( see the first page with the total wight) and they are talking about traction which is translated in today jet engine terms as thrust. Simple mathematics: 220 Kgf = 2158,2 N => 2.1 kn. (If you have problems with the lbf conversion let me know I can help you with that as well.) --Lsorin (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that the thrust number of 220 was in the brochure, I point to Bill Gunston saying that he "disbelieves" that number. Gunston thinks 220 was never attained. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The specifications is according to the source and the source is clearly identified as Coanda's own pamphlet. It may have been a calculation from first principles orn estimate from a scale model. As to whether any propulsive force was achieved can be addressed in the main article text which precedes the specification.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Graeme, I accept that the number we can list is one that the manufacturer provided in 1910. Certainly, we can say in the article text that Gunston doubts the number was achieved. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Bill Gunston a jet engine expert? He is a respectable pilot and author of books. That has nothing to do with testing an engine thrust. I wonder if you put into a respectable exhibition, invented numbers in a leaflet which is read by all the engine and aviation specialists of the time. Coanda must have been a total idiot and liar from Bill Gunston point of view. --Lsorin (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill Gunston (OBE, FRAeS) says he is "editor of Jane's Aero-Engines" among other things, though the article needs more citations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Graeme Leggett, 2 October 2010
Subsequent to the above request, for the "Specification" section formatting of the reference within the specification template,

replace " |ref= "

with

" "
 * ref=Contemporary pamphlet

GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. --192.100.112.211 (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lsorin, 4 October 2010
Request to revert the introduction to the most stable version. (at least from 2005 to 27 of July 2010) The current version is one form of the contested wording for the last 3 months and there is not expectation that the editors supporting it will ever stop ignoring the side not supporting it.

- The Coandă-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft ever built. It was constructed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă and exhibited by him at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris around October 1910. -

Lsorin (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I wikilinked jet propulsion in the proposed text above. It seemed appropriate.
 * Replacing the current lead sentence will cause 3 of the 4 references to be lost (one of them is used later in the article). What do you propose to do with these references, if anything? Put them in the bibliography for future use, if they aren't already there? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the references to the bibliography with a new edit request.--Lsorin (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. To be called "jet propelled", an aircraft would have to be propelled by a jet. Frank Winter in 1980 and Charles Gibbs-Smith in 1960 conclude separately that the aircraft never flew, and never was tested at Issy. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In order for me to consider edit requests, I must also evaluate the arguments. The above objection doesn't look like an argument against the proposed edit. If the propulsion mechanism was not jet propulsion, then propose something and discuss it rather than simply disagree. Note that jet propulsion requires neither an engine nor flight to qualify as jet propulsion, only that a jet of fluid provides thrust regardless of how the jet is created. The objection above basically says that a successful flight test is a prerequisite for jet propulsion, which isn't a valid reason for me to decline this edit request. Please clarify. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agreewith Lsorin proposal, and in the same time i think we should make a clasification of sources. For example Harry Stine and Walter Boyne i consider are way more qualified then Gibbs-Smith or Winter, so their opinion must have much more weight in the article. I think any neutral and non-biased person agree with that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral here and I have no opinion on the sources. That's for you guys to work out. Reliability of specific sources can be discussed at Reliable sources noticeboard. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The honor of being the first jet-propelled aircraft is "sometimes" given to the Heinkel He 178, as in this 2007 encyclopedia reference. Roger Ford agrees in his book Germany's Secret Weapons in World War II, on page 10, and so does D. A. Bradley et al in their book Mechatronics and the design of intelligent machines and systems. The 1996 Academic American Encyclopedia names the Heinkel as the first jet-propelled aircraft in an entry for 1939. A 1945 Italian source writes that "The first jet-propelled airplane was designed by Campini and flown near Milan, Italy, in 1940." The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) certified the first jet-propelled aircraft as the Campini N.1; at the time, they did not know of the secret Heinkel. A 1972 Soviet Military Review source says that "the world's first jet-propelled plane" was "developed by Soviet designers", "powered by a liquid-fuel, rocket engine" for use against Nazi Germany. All of these sources are in conflict with the assertion that the Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the issue! Depending on the sources used there is always different firsts! Especially the planes from the dawn of the modern aviation were heavily contested and confirmed by all kind of sources more less official at the time. That's why I proposed to add exactly what you listed above to a new article which will be linked to all early flying machines with this kind of controversies.

--Lsorin (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The introduction needs to summarise the article. The proposed introduction makes a single claim but does not include that the claim is disputed by some prominent and generally reliable aviation experts. Now an opening sentence saying "The Coandă-1910 was an aircraft constructed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă and exhibited by him at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris around October 1910." is hopefully something we can all agree states that it was Coanda's aircraft and where it appeared first. Then we need to add a statement about its powerplant that covers both angles and a third one about flight.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you didn't understood my edit request. I will put is again here: "Request to revert the introduction to the most stable version. (at least from 2005 to 27 of July 2010)
 * The current version is one form of the contested wording for the last 3 months and there is not expectation that the editors supporting it will ever stop ignoring the side not supporting it."
 * I don't expect that your proposal will lead to any more stable version. As well your proposal makes the whole plane irrelevant or worth to be listed in Wikipedia. In the consensus section the article was found relevant for Wikipedia. --Lsorin (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure GraemeLeggett understands your edit request. There is no such thing as a "stable version" when the subject is in dispute. If a version has been present for some time it does not gain status from that fact—it could easily have been wrong the whole time. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute from your side started when you finally found that Gibbs-Smith was a knighted by the Her Majesty the Queen. It stable version is presented is wrong only in your understanding, that's why the article is not stable since then. --Lsorin (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comment in the section below. You need to come up with a lead sentence that not only provides an overview of the article in accordance with WP:LEAD, but also must be compatible, or at least account for, the different viewpoints in the reliable sources out there. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit to intro - hopefully uncontroversial
Second sentence of current introduction. I propose reworking from

"It was constructed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă and exhibited by him at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris around October 1910."

To:

"It was constructed by the Romanian inventor Henri Coandă working in France and exhibited by him at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris around October 1910."

This adds wikilink to the Paris exhibition and clarifies that Coanda was in France at the time and didn't have to transport his aircraft across Europe first. There is mention of Camproni's workshop on the Coanda article but I haven't seen a source for that. D Any opinions on this as edit?GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a question. Normally it's uncontroversial to propose an edit that doesn't involve a content change. But I must ask, is the International Aeronautical Exhibition the same as the Paris Air Show? The article suggests that the Paris Air Show occurs in odd-numbered years. It also says it occurred four times before the start of World War I, which may imply it also occurred in 1910. The reason I ask is, I find the string "International Aeronautical Exhibition" in a lot of articles, but nothing wikilinked to Paris Air Show. That looks suspicious. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that ought to be clarified - I've found a reference to the Third Here in the Flight archive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an annual event during the period under discussion, the event beginning in 1909. The 1910 show was the second one, the first one at which Coanda exhibited. He exhibited again in 1911 at the third. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So are you in agreement that the "International Aeronautical Exhibition" is synonymous with the Paris Air Show? At the very least, I'd expect that name to be mentioned in the Paris Air Show article. Wikilinking isn't controversial, so I can easily make that edit. I just want to be sure that the wikilink is correct. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wikilink is correct. The Paris Air Show started in 1909 at the Grand Palais, and Coanda exhibited at it in 1910. Beyond its official title of Exposition internationale de locomotion aérienne, it has been called quite a number things by others: Paris Flight Salon, Paris Salon, Paris Show, Salon de la locomotion aérienne, Paris Salon Show of Flying Machines, Salon International de l'Aéronautique, Paris Aeronautic Salon, Exposition Internationale Aéronautique, Paris Aero Salon, Salon of Aerial Locomotion, International Aeronautical Exhibition, etc. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Romanian translation of airport guide


The rest of the links I have are in French or Romanian and I understand from Bisternet that this English encyclopedia does not accept references in languages not understandable by him.--Lsorin (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation from Romanian of the Bucharest's Henri Coandă International Airport guide: "Born in Bucharest, Coandă was the second child of a large family. His father was General Constantin Coandă, a mathematics professor at the National School of Bridges and Roads. His mother, Aida Danet, was the daughter of French physician Gustave Danet, and was born in Brittany. He was later to recall that even as a child he was fascinated by the miracle of wind. Coandă studied at the Petrache Poenaru Communal School in Bucharest, then (1896) at the Liceu Sf. Sava (Saint Sava National College). After three years (1899), his father, who desired a military career for him, had him transferred to the Military High School in Iaşi. He graduated in 1903 with the rank of sergeant major, and he continued his studies at the School of Artillery, Military, and Naval Engineering in Bucharest. Sent with an artillery regiment to Germany (1904), he enrolled in the Technische Hochschule in Charlottenburg, Berlin. Coandă graduated as an artillery officer, but he was more interested in the technical problems of flight. In 1905, he built a missile-aeroplane for the Romanian Army. He continued his studies (1907-1908) at the Montefiore Institute in Liège, Belgium, where he met Gianni Caproni. In 1908 Coandă returned to Romania to serve as an active officer in the Second Artillery Regiment. However, his inventor's spirit did not comport well with military discipline. He solicited and obtained permission to leave the army, after which he took advantage of his renewed freedom to take a long automobile trip to Isfahan, Teheran, and Tibet. Upon his return in 1909, he travelled to Paris, where he enrolled in the newly founded École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (now the École Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, also known as SUPAERO). One year later (1910) he graduated at the head of the first class of aeronautical engineers. With the support of engineer Gustave Eiffel and of the mathematician, politician, and aeronautical pioneer Paul Painlevé, he began experimenting the aerodynamic techniques: one of this experiments was mounting a device on a train running at 90 km/h so he could analyse the aerodynamic behavior. Another experiment used a wind tunnel with smoke and an aerodynamical balance to profile wings to be used in designing aircraft. This later led to the discovery of the aerodynamic effect now known as the Coandă effect. In 1910, in the workshop of Gianni Caproni, he designed, built and piloted the first 'thermojet' powered aircraft, known as the Coandă-1910, which he demonstrated publicly at the second International Aeronautic Salon in Paris. The plane used a 4-cylinder piston engine to power a compressor, which fed two burners for thrust, instead of using a propeller. It would be nearly 30 years until the next thermojet powered aircraft, the Caproni Campini N.1 (sometimes referred to as C.C.2). At the airport of Issy-les-Moulineaux near Paris, Coandă lost control of the jet plane, which went off the runway and caught fire. Fortunately, he escaped with just a good scare and some minor injuries to his face and hands. Coandă abandoned his experiments due to a lack of interest and support on the part of the public and of scientific and engineering institutions. Between 1911 and 1914, he worked as technical director of Bristol Aeroplane Company in the United Kingdom, where he designed several aeroplanes known as Bristol-Coanda Monoplanes. In 1912 one of these planes won the first prize at the International Military Aviation Contest in the UK. In 1915, he went again to France where, working during World War I for Delaunay-Belleville in Saint-Denis, he designed and built three different models of propeller aeroplane, including the Coandă-1916, with two propellers mounted close to the tail; this design was to be reprised in the "Caravelle" transport aeroplane, for which Coandă was a technical consultant. In the years between the wars, he continued traveling and inventing; inventions included the first jet-powered sleigh, and the first de luxe aerodynamic railroad train. In 1934 he was granted a French patent related to the Coandă Effect. In 1935, he used the same principle as the basis for a hovercraft called "Aerodina Lenticulara", which was very similar in shape to the flying saucers later developed by Avro Canada before being bought by the United States Air Force and becoming a classified project. In 1969, during the early years of the Ceauşescu era, he returned to spend his last days in his native Romania, where he served as director of the Institute for Scientific and Technical Creation (INCREST) and in 1971 reorganized, along with professor Elie Carafoli, the Department of Aeronautical Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, spinning it off from the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Coandă died in Bucharest November 25, 1972 at the age of 86. Bucharest's Henri Coandă International Airport is named after him." --Lsorin (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Who wrote that? Its author believed Coanda's version from the 1950s and '60s, and did not investigate the construction of the 1910 aircraft engine which did not have any burners in the airstream, per contemporary sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding foreign language URLs, Wikipedia recommends against them as "External links", but accepts them as references. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right, foreign language references are acceptable. Especially if they can be checked through Google Translator or similar service. As to who wrote it, it's an airport guide. It's like a brochure; such documents typically have no author credits. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it copyrighted? Someone used it as the old Wikipedia page on Henri Coanda. Some of it has been changed lately, but it used to be word for word. And does it qualify as a reliable source? It seems to have no named author. And is there any evidence of it having been published by a reputable publisher. Aren't these things usually just jobbed out to some printer as a work for hire by the airport?Romaniantruths (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not trust it, no matter who wrote it. It does not say he built a glider with Caproni in 1908, it puts the word Nationale in the title of the school which was begun as l'École supérieure d'aéronautique et de constructions mécaniques (it was not named as a national school until 21 May 1930), and it says he built a thermojet with two burners for thrust, a notion that Coanda put forward in the 1950s, emphasized with new drawings created in 1965, but a notion which is wholly unsupported by 1910s-era diagrams, articles and patents, and disputed by Winter and Gibbs-Smith. It retells Coanda's tale of woe where his aircraft flew, crashed and burned at Issy-les-Moulineaux, an event which was not recorded in any of the strictly kept French Army airfield reports, or described in the popular press at the time, a press which was avid about aircraft, and almost rabid for the smallest details of tests and unusual occurrences, according to Gibbs-Smith and Winter. It is inaccurate, leaving out any criticism or hint of dispute. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)