| QUOTE (Radub @ April 27, 2012 11:44 am) |
|
| QUOTE | Udar,
The Coanda 1910 was not a "jet" plane. It has none of the features of a jet plane. Maybe the confusion is caused by such words as "air jet" and thinking that just because it contains the word "jet" it is a "jet engine". I can make an "air jet" when I whistle. That does not mean that I have a jet engine in my mouth. Vuia's engine was in every single way similar to the way your vacuum cleaner uses a motor to turn a turbine and generate a difference in pressure, thus creating a "jet of air". That does not mean that the vacuum cleaner is a jet engine. A "jet engine" works by compressing air, heating it, and then using the resulting "jet of hot gases" for propulsion. Coanda's propulsion device had none of those things. The invention of the "jet engine" is shared between Von Ohain and Whittle who, separately, perfected the system. |
Well, i understand you are convinced by Brtis propaganda, which is OK, we live in a democracy and everyone is free to believe what he/she wish. Whittle and Von Ohain invented the "turbojet" engine, a variant of jet engine.
Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane in the world, and i have more trust in what reliable or neutral avaiation historians or scholars say. I already give you an example.
Coanda-1910 did had "heater" devices on the air gases exhaust, so thats how the he observed the "Coanda effect". I think those appear in his sketches of the plane and was mounted before the first and last flight
| QUOTE |
The Coanda 1910 plane never flew. Coanda made a claim that he flew that plane and the plane went on fire, but there is no record of any kind of this flight. He displayed the plane at the Paris Air Show in 1910 (so the plane was not burned yet) and at the end of the show he sold the plane to a person called Weymann who took it with him. This appears to be Charles Terres Weymann, a very famous pilot at the time. So... when could Coanda fly it?
That flight (and subsequent ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris) was not recorded by any newspaper, photographer, eye-witness, no one. Planes were the "hottest thing" at the time. A plane in the air was the most exciting thing at the time. A plane in the air was headline material at the time. Yet, there is absolute silence about this flight. It never took place. Evidence of this flight has been the "holy grail" of aviation historians for many decades, yet not a single mention of such a flight has ever been found.
The first claim about this flight was made by Coanda during an interview on TVR in the late-sixties (no such mention ever existed between 1910 and that interview). By that stage, he was already losing his marbles and it is hard to say whether he made the whole thing up for attention or his feeble mind was convinced it took place. |
What the heck are you talking about? A ball of fire trailing smoke across Paris? Is this a joke, are you for real? Do you think it was like a Concorde with burning engines falling from the skies? Good God.
It was a simple taxiing of the plane, when it suddenly took off on the camp near Paris. Coanda reduced the gases and the plane crushed.
It is possible that that guy, Weymann, to express his desire to buy the plane, but surely didnt. More then that, he was alive in 50's-60's (and no way when you say, late 60's) when Coanda talk more about that flight, but never contradict him. They was both in France anyway.
The plane crushed and a part of it (like the tail and so) was salvaged and reused later with a conventional rotor blade.
This because Coanda didnt have money to build other planes or develope his concept.
There are eye witnesses of that flight however, is not my fault you dont know much about that
And your supposition toward his state of mind in late 60's is just rude and unprouven, to not say other things. It looks like you have a real problem with Coanda, psichological wise.
| QUOTE |
As for his genius as an aviation designer (and I am referring to him as an aviation designer), as I said, please read Dan Antoniu's book. You will quickly realise that he was simply a poor designer (actually reckless) and in his search for "unusual" designs, he created crazy contraptions or utter deathtraps. After 1918 he moved on to other stuff and never returned to aviation. |
If i get my hand on that book, i will, ofcourse. Just look after another one, "Coanda si avioanele sale" by Craciunoiu and Sandachi. I think they say the other way, that was a jet plane and had a flight (the doomed one). And they come too with photos and documents who show that wasnt a simple made up story.
About the fact he moved from aviation after 1918 it was just rejected by Radu Manicatide interview, i fail to understand how you still believe that. Gosh, there are pics with parts of his "flying saucer" patents obtained in 50's and 60's flowing on the internet
| QUOTE | | He obtaind the patent for the Coanda Effect in the mid-thirties, by which stage he was interested in fluid dynamics, so it is very likely that he came across it during his fluids research rather than his aviation research. |
Yet his flying saucer model fly in early 30's (like two years before the Coanda effect patent). Or you still believe Radu Manicatide lied? And if so, on which basis?
| QUOTE | | In the mid-twenties, Coanda wrote to the War Minstry with a plan to "revive the armament industry". His plan was rejected. So, to answer your "what if" question, Coanda tried and failed to "fix" he military industry in Romania. No point in asking "what if Coanda got involved"? |
Yes, our politicians and leaders back then was as idiots as ever in the last period. Few was up to the task to lead the country.
But the purpose of this "what if" discussion is to imagine how would be if, we already know what was.
| QUOTE | Now, I suggest you go and read Dan Antoniu's book about Coanda. He was a very interesting man, but strangely enough he is remembered for stuff he did not do and the stuff that he did successfully is forgotten.
Radu |
Ah, i understand you saw that documentary and give up to "flying saucer" debate  Yes, i said i will sometimes, just try to check too the one i told you, and until then look a bit here http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri_Coanda_The_facts.pdf |
Actually even smaller scale solutions were available and could have been useful, like honoring all the armament orders made by Romania in the late 30’s, which would have made for quite a well armed military (I'm refering especially at the Schneider and Bofors ATG, the Schneider and Skoda heavy artillery, the ZB heavy MG's). Or some relatively small improvements, like the arming of R 2 tank (delivered in greater number) with the main gun of LT vz. 38 (a solution suggested by the manufacturer), an earlier setting of assembly lines for (a 37 mm SA 38 gun armed) R 35 (which was a decent tank in that configuration) and for the (machine-gun armed) UE tankette (as negotiated between Romania and France), and/or the production/purchasing of a 37 mm Bofors armed Vickers 6-ton, using the Finnish or Polish example. Another decent solution could have been the purchase of R 3 as a main battle tank (see that for a general idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-3_(tank) ) - sort of Romanian-Czech version of the Somua tank. 
