Talk:Henri Coandă

Aviation Activities in France

/!\ Protection issue /!\

Current version of the text is:

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.

However, there is a confusion between two french aerospace schools, École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (known as ENSICA) and École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (known as ENSA and then ENSAE, or SUPAERO). M. Coanda was a student at École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (founded in 1909 and that changed its name for École Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace) and not at École Nationale Superieure d'Ingenieurs en Construction Aéronautique (founded much later, in 1946).

The text should be modified as follow:

Upon his return in 1909, he travelled to Paris, where he enrolled in the newly founded École Nationale Superieure d'Aeronautique et de Construction Mecaniques (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.

Thank you for editing as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.54.120.175 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry joke of a flying saucer claim

This highly controversial, unacceptably sourced garbage is still up there. WHY? Bunksternit, you put this up there and ignored objections to it while keeping the page protected to maintain these spurious claims. I want an explanation.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am adding the flying saucer to the article body with a cite to the patent. Does that fix the problem? Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have an actual flying saucer patent, and not the patent shown on the site you reference, which is most definitely not for a flying saucer, or any craft whatsoever, but only for another propeller improvement(reading the patent will make this clear). By the way, did you notice how the source you referenced shows the patent diagram sideways to hide the fact that it's a design for a lateral propulsion system? Doesn't this sort of obvious intentional mis-representation of facts call the entire veracity of the source into question? You have argued that repeatedly on this talk-page in reference to other blogs(Like Henri Coanda; the facts, remember that one?)Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Having now checked your reference, I see that it is a blank page. But the title "propeling device" still makes it clear that this is not a flying saucer patent. So no, I don't think anyone would say that fixes the problem. And there is the further complication that this pathetic WWII flying saucer lie is so ridiculous that it is unlikely any reputable author has bothered to refute it. Coanda DID make a lot of noise about his flying saucer AFTER WWII, with fantastic claims that he increased every time he could find someone to listen to them (just like his jet engine). But he told Stine that he invented it after the war, and we can't very well go against the "brilliant scientist and inventor of the model rocket" can we? TheCoanda WWII flying saucer story is popular primarily on cites that specialize in nazi flying saucer stories(just google "xerium" and you'll be there).Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Coandă effect

This article claims Henri Coanda discovered the Coanda effect, which is contradictory with Coandă effect, where Coanda's contribution was just in recognizing its practical applications. mudava (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Silly phrasing

"... a controversial claim disputed by some and supported by others." Surely a controversial claim is by definition "disputed by some and supported by others." Zgryphon (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Who are you, even?

User:Andy Dingley Who do you think you are? You, who has not even 0.01% of Coandă's knowledge and learning, you, who contributed with nothing to the world, YOU, dare make HIM, a LIAR?! You scum, you don't even deserve to kiss his toe, yet you think you can decide for him! No wonder the world has gotten this low, no wonder the Wiki is so criticized, as long as likes like you, who have no notion of respect or recognition, are running things!... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The "1910 jet aircraft" claim is an old one round here. There is very little to support it, although this does rely on subtle technical distinctions as to just what he built, and just what a "jet engine" means. Please don't re-open this without at least reading the long past discussions of this on the article talk pages and elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Very little to support it"...how about your eyes? You're not blind, right? Everyone who looks at that for the first time says "wow, a jet", I think you're the only one in the world who doesn't... -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Andy Dingley is quite correct in what he says. However, your behaviour towards him in the discussion is far below the level of politeness acceptable in Wikipedia and amounts to personal attacks. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't react much better if you'd be in my place...Seeing your country tarnished, it's history and contributions disconsidered, the achievements of it's people denied and contested 24/7...it's a very unpleasant feeling...You're probably American, so you can't possibly understand how I feel, but simply put: I just want justice... Romanian-and-proud (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What you really mean is that your cherished propaganda is being called to task, and on wikipedia, who you are is utterly irrelevant. Completely. Your feelings in the matter are also irrelevant - Wikipedia isn't about to change articles because of people's hurt feelings. Wikipedia has many articles about things people FEEL very strongly against, such as global warming, GMOs, vaccinations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop articles based on the most reliable available published references from being included, and unreliable information being kept in the margins where it belongs - and the same for this page. Simply put, what he built was not a jet engine, and it neither had fuel injected into the airstream, lacked a combustion chamber capable of handling the resulting fuel burning, and lacked any means of turning whatever burned into thrust, all while leaving the fuselage sides (which were highly flammable) unprotected. Coanda's drawings were found to have been altered after the fact in an attempt to make a claim but this occurred long after real jet engines were in existence. What he built was a Ducted fan - still a very important invention, but not a jet engine - and it was powered by a conventional engine that backfired, setting the aircraft on fire, which indicates he had no expectation of anything coming out the exhaust, which he would have if he had been designing a jet engine.NiD.29 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It WAS a jet engine, but it was the very first one, ofcourse it didn't have what you find today in a jet engine, because it was made over 100 years ago! Even if you don't want to call it a jet engine, you still have to admit that this was the first real step in the development of jet engines. Expecting it, in 1910, to have what others had over 30 years later is just absurd and biased. There's this thing, it's called evolution. We humans evolved from monkeys. That doesn't make monkeys humans, but they are still the starting point. Just like with Coandă here, he made the "monkey" of the jet flight. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong there as well. You might think you evolved from a monkey, but humans didn't. I suggest you read Human evolution before calling on it to support your case. Emeraude (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Monkey is just a figure of speech, anyway that was not even the focus, did you even get what I meant to say or not? I had enough of arguing over obvious things with redundant people like you. -_- 18:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Romanian-and-proud (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Then don't use figures of speech when attempting to make a serious point. Of course I got what you meant to say - we all have, and you're still wrong. And you're not behaving to other editors in an aceptable way. Emeraude (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

How am I wrong? How? I only say what Coanda said about his OWN invention! Who do you think you are to tell a man what he invented? It's his invention, so he has the sole right to name it! Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So much butthurt - You have far too much invested to offer additions with any chance of neutrality, which is central to making wikipedia edits. I suggest you step back and think about it for a while before returning to make changes to english wikipedia that match Romania's blatantly false propaganda which made extensive claims to appropriate a whole host of inventions, which was so systematic it had its own name - Protochronism, which basically undermines the legitimacy of ANY Romanian claim for anything.

The jet engine did not evolve from Coanda's efforts, and the only connection is with the turbofan, which uses a ducted fan ahead of a jet engine to augment the thrust. Coanda made changes to his own drawings to make claims that have never had any other supporting evidence, beyond an accidental backfire from the engine that blew through the fan before immolating the aircraft. He then immediately abandoned the idea and never took it up again, without understanding any of the possibilities, and never built anything resembling a jet engine. This is a pretty clear indicator that it was not a jet engine, otherwise he would have come back to the idea at some later point in his career. Had it actually been a jet engine, he would have tested it on a test stand, not on the aircraft, and every indication is that he was surprised when the flames ignited the aircraft - had it actually been a jet engine, he would not have been surprised as jet engines produce a jet of flame out their exhaust - which any half baked designer would have compensated for, by not running it along a fabric surface coated in a highly flammable substance (ie dope).NiD.29 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's true that there were some exaggerations, but you can't just say that we can't have a claim for anything. Like, for instance, I claim that the Western WW2 documentaries would stop acting like we didn't exist, I don't think that's an unjustified claim. Besides, Protochronism is about Dacians and their role in the forming of the Romanian nation. Dacia was our starting point, Dacians were our ancient ancestors. There is no connection between them and Coanda, and you are being very absurd right now. I know what my nation did, what it deserves and what is it's place. And I see no exaggeration in Protochronism We are Dacians. All of you Westerners squeal like pigs when any afinity to our ancient Dacia is even mentioned, but we know who we are, and we definately don't need YOU to tell us who we are! We are Dacians who eveolved and continued to dwell here. I am a Dacian. I feel and consider myself a Dacian. There's no way for a history-less people like the Americans to tell me who I am. -_- Romanian-and-proud (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Protochronism didn't stop with the formation of Romania, but extended to a considerable number of cultural and technical advances, of which Coanda's "jet" is merely one. I couldn't care less about any Dacian controversy or what you call yourself and would be happy to think of you as a Dacian, but that is beside the point. My interest is solely related to cultural theft, when claims are put forward to bolster one country's pride at the expense of those who actually were responsible for the advances.NiD.29 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)