Talk:Henri Coandă

message: I took the liberty of improving the English of the translated quotation in the "Quotes" section. However, I'd love to see the original to verify that it is translated correctly. It's not in the (rather extensive) Romanian-language Wikipedia article from which I have been drawing most of this material. -- Jmabel 07:17, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first one on this list since a bunch of people throwing you a party is neither an award, nor a medal. 
"Liceu" is romanian for "Highschool" [User:Mihai] 19 Dec 03
Agreed, in terms of the age of the students but the word is well-known in English (from the French) and the curriculum, as I understand it, resembles a French liceu far more than an American high school. Similarly, in an article about a German, I would not translate gymnasium. -- Jmabel 17:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I strongly suspect that "precursor" would be a better choice. - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation 

message: Where and how did he spent World War II? --Error 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is practically devoid of any information on the man after the age of 30. Cripipper 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 

message: The article states
"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."
I'd fix the link to point to the Caravelle Airliner, if there was any evidence linking this twin jet design with a twin pusher propellor one I've never seen.  Is that the right Caravelle?
Number774 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caravelle and Coanda - surely not? 

message: Let's begin a discussion of what the sources say, in detail. We should stick to verifiable and reliable sources, of course. What they say will determine the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you're talking about Flight among other magazines. You might be surprised to see how much the contributers and readers knew, thought and questioned (eg the use of exhaust gases for propulsion or the amount of detail in the construction of an aeroplane or the layout of an engine GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, i do not consider Gibbs as the ultimate observer, but Stine and Romanian Academy, it is better now? I will apreciate as well that dumb like retarted and pathetic actions of erase books and links related with the subject (from Stine to one dealing with Coanda effect) will stop. I already said that wikipedia is not reliable precisely because such biased silly actions as you, and the lack of neutrality. Isnt weird that just Gibbs, some more modern Flight articles and Royal Aviation instiute said was not a jet (and their opinion are presented most here) and americans, romanians, germans, french etc.agree it was the first jet, but their opinion is barely represented? As i said Gibbs had no idea what he talk about, he wasnt there to see if Coanda flyied, nor he knows how the engine worked. Yes, the flames might burn the plane and the pilot, thats why Coanda put those metal plates to deflect them, and thats why the plane was burn, and thats why he abandoned the idea for a while, until he managed to understand what happened-see Coanda effect. And yes, nobody back then will want to fund a weird and very unusual aircraft who can kill the pilot and took fire, not Coanda wanted to make waves, as "look, i made a new kind of plane, with a new propulsion sistem, is just that you can burn when he take off". It was something way ahead of that time, as Eiffel told him, so until he understand what happened he renounced to that idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.244 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibbs-Smith is much more convincing to me than Coanda himself, and any Romanian source. Coanda never wrote about the aircraft's first "flight" or about it being a jet until four decades later—this fact is very damning to his claims. If you can find any writing from the 1910s, 1920s or 1930s that discusses its flight or any kind of fuel injection/combustion I will be very impressed. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of sources 

message: In this letter to the editor of Flight, published 14 October 1960, Charles Gibbs-Smith writes: 
(The letter Gibbs-Smith was responding to was one written by T. R. Servian of Croyden, Surrey, England, printed in September 1960 Flight.)
To me, this means that Coanda made no jet claims until 1956 at which time he said the Coanda-1910 was an early jet, that it flew once and crashed, and that he could not continue its development for lack of funds. Gibbs-Smith suggests that any flames in the "plain air" output would have killed the pilot, and he notes that Coanda was not at all short of funds—he dropped his unsuccessful 1910 design and immediately started fabricating a prop-plane which was ready in 1911.
The book Gibbs-Smith was referring to in his letter was The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development, published just a little earlier in 1960. A section entitled "The Coanda Sesquiplane of 1910" begins on page 220, starting with "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine, designed by..." I consider Gibbs-Smith the ultimate observer of this controversy, impartial yet pointedly direct in his rebuttal to Coanda's claims. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i do not consider Gibbs as the ultimate observer, but Stine and Romanian Academy, it is better now? I will apreciate as well that dumb like retarted and pathetic actions of erase books and links related with the subject (from Stine to one dealing with Coanda effect) will stop. I already said that wikipedia is not reliable precisely because such biased silly actions as you, and the lack of neutrality. Isnt weird that just Gibbs, some more modern Flight articles and Royal Aviation instiute said was not a jet (and their opinion are presented most here) and americans, romanians, germans, french etc.agree it was the first jet, but their opinion is barely represented? As i said Gibbs had no idea what he talk about, he wasnt there to see if Coanda flyied, nor he knows how the engine worked. Yes, the flames might burn the plane and the pilot, thats why Coanda put those metal plates to deflect them, and thats why the plane was burn, and thats why he abandoned the idea for a while, until he managed to understand what happened-see Coanda effect. And yes, nobody back then will want to fund a weird and very unusual aircraft who can kill the pilot and took fire, not Coanda wanted to make waves, as "look, i made a new kind of plane, with a new propulsion sistem, is just that you can burn when he take off". It was something way ahead of that time, as Eiffel told him, so until he understand what happened he renounced to that idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.244 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibbs-Smith is much more convincing to me than Coanda himself, and any Romanian source. Coanda never wrote about the aircraft's first "flight" or about it being a jet until four decades later—this fact is very damning to his claims. If you can find any writing from the 1910s, 1920s or 1930s that discusses its flight or any kind of fuel injection/combustion I will be very impressed. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Gibbs-Smith 

message: This article from Flight 24 June 1955 predates Coanda's claim to early jet invention. The article, "Without Visible Means of Support" by A. R. Weyl, mentions Coanda in passing as the inventor of a "ducted-fan-propelled aeroplane", though he credits G. Koch with inventing an earlier ducted airscrew in 1893. Weyl does not say anything about the Coanda-1910 being an early jet, because Coanda had not yet made such a claim. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Flight'', 1955 

message: In January 1973, Flight printed an obituary of "Dr Henri Coanda" in which he was credited with the invention of "a ducted fan aeroplane and the development of fluid dynamics." The obit called Coanda's 1910 design "unsuccessful" though it "set a precedent". Nowhere in the obituary is any sort of rudimentary jet engine design mentioned, though it goes into a bit of detail about other works such as desalinization. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Flight'', 1973 

message: It can't be described as a source but it might be a jumping off point - searching through Flight, I found [a (1911) request for info on the turbo-propulseur. So far I have not found anything in the correspondence pages of following issues. Unfortunately the search is limited by the quality of the OCR (I found a "th" identified as a "m" in an unrelated dig) so a lack of match does not mean an absence of the text searched for. The request mentions its use with "Gregoire" motor sleighs which might be another avenue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary materials 

message: I am removing a link to a paper by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation:
*http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/PAP/PAP-0672.pdf
The paper is not written about aviation engineering, it is about the Coanda effect in hydraulics. The author cites Stine's 1989 work, and adds no new observations. Whatever this link was giving is already given by Stine, so this one has no value here. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureau of Reclamation 

message: I have removed some sentences that claim widespread belief in Coanda's jet claims, a belief that gives no names of who was saying what. The sentences are not useful unless persons can be matched to their statements.
Here is the section, with removed text in italics:
:"This view is held as well by most of modern scientific comunity. At the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1983, it was said that Coanda-1910 was the first reactive aircraft, and at the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990 it was again stated that Coanda-1910 was the first jet aircraft. Rolf Sonnemann and Klaus Krug from University of Technology of Dresden, who researched 10 years materials for their book "Technik und Technikwissenschaften in der Geschichte" stated as well that Coanda-1910 was the world's first jet, an opinion held as well by a series of american and romanian aviation historians."
The assertions that "most of modern" and "a series of american and romanian aviation historians" are not supported by cites. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  most of modern scientific community 

message: I am removing sentences that give the Coanda-1910 passable heat shields which are supposed to withstand a jet exhaust:
:"But acording to Coanda he added some metal plates at the exit area of exhausted gases precisely to deflect them. But the flames coming from the engine, for his surprise, instead to be deflected, curved over the plates toward him and close to the airplane body, making him to cut the gasoline and the aircraft crushed. After some years of trying to understand what happened, Coanda patented in 1934 in France what was named since then the "Coanda effect", discovered by him during this flight."
The assertion by Gibbs-Smith that the pilot would be killed by a jet exhaust takes all the Coanda features into account. Whatever heat shields the aircraft could claim would not have been enough to save the pilot from death if fuel were ignited in a combustion chamber. The only heat was from heat exchangers, pressurized air, and piston engine exhaust. The notional heat shields that would have saved the pilot are not visible at all in photographs. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat shields 

message: Let's stop editing this article in relation to any of the Coandă-1910 material until after the RfC at Talk:Coandă-1910#RfC:_How_to_present_the_controversy_to_the_reader has run its course. We are sorting out how the contradictory claims in the matter will be presented. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see the article is now edit protected for two weeks. That will give us time to discover the best way forward. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cease fire until RfC is done 

message: I have added citation needed tags to both of these since they have no citations, and since I've personally read the patent usually described as his 1930's flying saucer and it definitely isn't a flying saucer. It's a design for a stationary propeller that uses the Bernoulli effect by blowing gas over a mushroom shaped construction. The aerodynamic train should have a citation tag too (patents for aerodynamic trains date back to the late 19th century, I'll find a reference later if it's necessary), but this page is already cluttered with citation tags because it's so full of uncited (and in my opinion inaccurate) claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those JPG images are not suitable as references, which is why they have been repeatedly removed. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your threat to start "erasing stuffs all over Wikipedia" doesn't really impress me, but I think it probably violates the Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not sure about this, so if you do start erasing stuff all over Wikipedia please let me know if you're told that it's agaist the rules to do so. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Romaniantruths, you know you shouldn't feed the troll. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: If you are going to add links, please take time to format them properly. this section of Wikipedia explains how to format a hyperlink. If you want to present them as references/citations this is the section to read.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jet sleigh and flying saucer 

message: Once again I have removed the image URLs which keep returning, supposedly as references to support Aerodina Lenticulara:
#http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg
#http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/coanda%20foto%202.jpg
#http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg
#http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/farfuria%20planuri%20coanda%20foto%204.jpg
#http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg
#http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/7/aerodina.jpg
These images are unsuitable as references. They are created or assembled by people other than Coanda, and have no verifiability. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to add links, please take time to format them properly. this section of Wikipedia explains how to format a hyperlink. If you want to present them as references/citations this is the section to read.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  JPGs as references 

message: I removed the sentence "Others say it merely crashed" from the end of Walter Boyne's quoted sentences about the Coanda-1910. Boyne is demonstrably wrong about what "others say"—Winter and Gibbs-Smith say it did not fly at all, let alone crashed. I see no reason why this phrase of Boyne's should be included in his quote, if it is so wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Boyne may be referring to others - disloyal fans?, opponents?, bystanders? - rather than Gibbs-Smith and Winter. Including it removes issues about selective quoting. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anybody falls into the category of people who think the Coanda-1910 flew but did not crash. Boyne sets up a straw man argument with his final sentence—everybody who says it flew also says it crashed. There are no "others" to which Boyne might be referring. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: well, probably Boyne didnt even took in consideration Gibbs as a qualified opinion worth to be mentioned on this matter, which i agree. Gibbs himself, in the paragraphs quoted in the article, make some assumptions and supositions backed by nothing, just merely his own believes. And, above all, he is not qualified to talk about engines, is biased, and my opinion is that he need to be removed totaly from our dscussion, and just Stine and Boyne to be mentioned as most important sources, clearly the most qualified. Or, if Gibbs or Winter to be mentioned, they have a separate paragraph, called "Controversies"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.197 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of conjecture is that, to guess what Boyne was thinking about Gibbs-Smith? This conjecture is completely outside of the question about having the full Boyne quote, including the straw man argument with a null set of people who think Coanda flew but did not crash. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is flying and crashing (shortly after take off I veer to the left, clip a building and crash) and there is just crashing without flying (powering down the field, I veer off and run into the front of the building). The latter could be "merely crashed". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it could mean taxiing then crashing, but there are none who make this claim about the Coanda-1910. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  others say it merely crashed 

message: I removed this quote:
I took it out because it was not found anywhere in a thorough book search, or in scholarly papers. The only places I found it were unreliable webpages about famous quotes. If we can give proper attribution to this quote (when and where) then we can return it to the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Child's toy made of paper" 

message: At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79, there was a discussion about the JPG URLs that some editors keep trying to put into the article. They are not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  JPG images as links in article 

message: There are a few problems with this section:
Activities? would this include things like camping and shuffleboard? It makes the section look a little weird, and it's makes the section a depot for things which belong in the body of the text. In fact several of the entries are just re-iterations of things already discussed in the main body of the article(Like various Bristol aircraft he designed). 
Also, the solar de-salinisation system: Is he supposed to have invented it? Or designed one? Romaniantruths (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventions activities and discoveries 

message: Why were all the contemporary references erased from the lead, and the article? They all describe what Coanda said about his aircraft at the airshow(that it was a ducted fan). Romaniantruths (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissapearing references 

message: For two months now I have been steadily reverting the same general content added by IP editors, the latest one being 193.xxx after the 79.xxx series was blocked, because the IP edits are taking this article in the wrong direction. 
The IP edits are of the nature of arguing the Coandă-1910 story here on this page rather than on that article's page. Too much detail about the Coandă-1910 keeps being introduced to this article, but Coandă was much more of an engineer than that one aircraft. He invented a wide array of devices, and experienced great success in other matters. This biography article is not the place to put too much emphasis, per WP:WEIGHT, on one small aspect of the man's life.
Specifically, I have been removing assertions that the Coandă-1910 was "the first aircraft constructed for air-reactive propulsion", because at least one expert source (Winter) questions this fact, I have removed "turbine powered" because the modern definition of turbine does not include what the 'turbo-propulseur' could do, and I have removed a group of patent documents that are too much detail for this bio. Gibbs-Smith was quoted as saying "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" but the context was not explained, the quote was too much detail for a bio, and Winter gives a different possibility (that Canovetti might have been first). I have removed a whole paragraph about aircraft details—wa-a-ay too much granularity for this bio. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Binksternet, I've been following this for a while now, and I don't think you need to discuss your reverts anymore, as you're doing the right thing. I suspect that whoever is behind these poor edits is trying to prove a point or somehow "win" the argument. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I greatly appreciate your support of my actions, but if you delve into my edit history you will see at least one block which hit me suddenly after I took similar actions against an IP editor. That time, I was keeping cited information in an article that an IP editor very much wanted to have out. I wish to avoid that sort of ugliness again. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war about [[Coandă-1910]] emphasis 

message: This addition
The problems are:
# A verbatim 1967 quote by Coanda, sourced from here here 
# http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7281839/4/radar-cover.jpg
# http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7281839/5/radar-articol.jpg
re the quote. What's the copyright problem with it? It's not Allstar's copyright to claim, whatever they stick in the page footer. It is Coanda's copyright, but short quotes are under fair use (this is how Allstar are already using it).
re the desalination images, I'd see the first (the plant image) as acceptable, but not the second. This is because the second adds nothing to the first image, other than some non-English text. Anything we could gain from the second is better done by adding text ourselves.
Binksternet, don't throw them such an easy bone. Anon IP, I just hope you're not Lsorin socking away... Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Andy, no bone. This IP addressee is not Lsorin. The 79.11x IP guy lives in Braşov, Romania, while Lsorin lives in Finland. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Lsorin socks from Brasov IPs on a regular basis. Binksternet, you've personally warned his socks for edit-warring repeatedly. The proof is on Brutaldeluxe's talk-page(22: jet engine), where Lsorin, in the middle of a highly abusive exchange forgot to log in as Lsorin and made two comments (on the 28th and 29th) as two of his Brasov socks. These socks were both warned by you for edit-warring.Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not terribly convincing evidence that it's him IP-socking, rather than another editor with the same viewpoint and lack of civility. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Lsorin and the Brasov IPs do not use the same English spelling and grammar mistakes. Each has a signature of mistakes, and the two are not the same. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lsorin asked brutaldeluxe for something, Brutaldeluxe declined, and the reply,"Sorry I ask you..." came from a Brasov IP. Andy Dingly(I made sport of your name once but regret that and won't do it again, tho' my Teapot comment stil stands), are you suggesting that the Brasov IP in question was pretending to be Lsorin? And that he just happened to find this exchange and decide to continue it as if he were someone else? Give me a break. However as for Binksternet's assertion that "Each has a signature of mistakes, and the two are not the same." Well maybe that is proof; after all, no mere human being could ever voluntarily vary his spelling and grammar, as these things are invariable human traits beyond our control. I guess mebbe I have no prouve and my post sucks many times, sorry I ask you 'gods' of Wikipedia about this. :(Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In this talk page entry, IP 79.116 says "are you idiot? Stop erasing the correct quotes of that Boyne article, and other links and documents" in reply to Brutaldeluxe's (absolutely appropriate) deletions here and then again here. This is not Lsorin. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He says,"Sorry I ask you..."(at least according to the link you provided) ,and if you read the history of this talk page you'll find that there's an editor on here called Binksternet who doesn't approve of re-posting abusive statements while discussing them. He's even been known to delete them himself, just ask Redfoot(remember? the guy who says "shut the fuck up" a lot). Ion G Nemes (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me to be a second guy jumping on the conversation, taking up where Lsorin left off, the second guy angry about deletions of museum-designed JPGs used as references, etc. Binksternet (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over claimed copyright on a quote 

message: I added a tag to the top of the article stating that it contains sources that may be unreliable. Specifically, I am questioning this one:
*Proiectele necunoscute ale lui Henri Coandă: OZN-ul lui Coandă, fascinanta creaţie care a înlemnit America! ("Unknown Projects of Henri Coandă: Coanda's UFO, fascinating creation that has dumbfounded America!")
It appears to have been written by George Olteanu on 3 September 2010 for Go4It, a Romanian gadget and technology website that reminds me of gdgt.com. Who is Olteanu? We have no indication of his level of expertise. The post looks more like a hosted blog than anything else; it was posted in the Technology Curiosities section (Curiozitati). Olteanu appears to have written several posts about Coanda: , , , , and . Olteanu looks to me like an amateur fan of Coanda.
These articles are fun to read but not high on the reliable/verifiable scale. There are better sources we can use to describe the man's accomplishments, I am sure. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the go4it bits by Olteanu do not look so bad. None of them are used to support a controversial claim. I am removing the tag I placed. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So suddenly a blog is an admissible source? And This is not only a controvertial claim, but a provably false one. The illustration on this blog shows a 1932 patent which is not for a flying saucer. It's a patent for another replacement for a propeller. No one could read this patent without realizing this, so it's pretty obvious that Olteanu is either intentionally posting false claims, or didn't care enough about this subject matter to check the patent(not very likely, obviously if he really thought this patent might say what he chose to claim it says he would have posted the whole thing)The other drawings all date to the 50's. Which, interestingly enough, is when that 'brilliant rocket scientist, and Coanda scholar' Stine says the Aerodina lenticulara was invented! Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: I removed the PDF external link call "Henri Coanda: The Facts", hosted by newfluidtechnology.com.
*http://www.newfluidtechnology.com.au/Henri_Coanda_The_facts.pdf
This PDF has no author, and is unverifiable. No level of author expertise can be assessed. This link fails WP:V and WP:RS, and violates WP:ELPOV as it gives too much credence to Coanda's version of events.
According to WP:ELNO, we should be following this guideline: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. The PDF gives misleading statements about Coanda, specifically, it says the following:
#Coanda invented the "first jet engine powered plane". Expert sources disagree about this. See Coanda-1910.
#"Gasoline was then added to the fan exhaust and then ignited." Contradicted by experts such as Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith who said there was no injection and of course no ignition.
The PDF has some interesting photos but its text is misleading in places. In the PDF, the photos are said to be given by G. Harry Stine but this is not proven and there could be a copyright violation. The bigger problem is the presence of misleading statements. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibbs-Smith is the largest commentator on the subject of early aviation; the most notable and the most highly regarded. In his 1960 and 1970 books he says nearly the same thing about Coanda, in some cases the exact same thing. There was no change in the opinion of Gibbs-Smith from 1960 to 1970. ::Regarding copyrighted images, who owns the photos? The document says that G. Harry Stine gave them all to Terry Day. Who is that? Was Terry Day involved in making the PDF? Did he give his permission? Did American author and model rocket engineer G. Harry Stine really give all these photos to someone in Australia? We have no proof. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was the acknowledged lion of early aviation history from the 1940s until his death. His obituary in the Times described him as "the recognised authority on the early development of flying in Europe and America and in 1962 the Royal Aeronautical Society recognised his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. ... His international reputation then led the Smithsonian Institution to appoint him as the first Lindbergh Professor of Aerospace History at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington in 1978." He was a Research Fellow at the Science Museum in London, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and a Fellow of the Museums Association. Richard P. Hallion called him "The greatest of all historians of early aviation" and "the greatest of historians tracing the early history of flight". That is extremely high praise from the highest places. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After nearly a year of this, I can't believe the effort you guys have been putting into arguing with the same persistent contributor. If all the work you had put against this geezer had gone into the article, we'd have an amazing article by now! Stop arguing and improve the article! Mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  A more likely view is that if the people you complain of hadn't put that effort into arguing with a couple of contributors, then the article would now be a swamp. It would be as short as previously, as badly written, it would claim that Romania invented Concorde and would use copyright violation media to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! I'm not arguing with that. Sausage down an alley (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Facts" PDF

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: /!\ 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)
thread_title:  Aviation Activities in France 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sorry joke of a flying saucer claim

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coandă effect 

message: "... 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)
thread_title:  Silly phrasing