Talk:Jet aircraft

message: There are both compact and bus-size jetplanes.  We should make multiple articles about different size jetplanes just like there are articles about different size automobiles.  The article I am suggesting are compact jet and commercial jet. --SuperDude 00:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jet sizes

message: Actually, the first operating jet was a British aircraft, the name of which escapes me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.101.101.78 (talk • contribs) .
Hi, I think the first british commercial jet was the comet -- Maj. Templeton  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.204.143 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First flight

message: The Coanda-1910 is listed above, but the Canadian biplane ca. 1912 is not.  Reference needed: Older printed material on early flight.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roy.crabtree@gmail.com (talk • contribs) .
The Coanda-1910 was the first jet plane ever built, however, this article doesn't display its picture. 
Please display the picture of the Coanda-1910 jet plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.134.77 (talk • contribs) 
:No, see the arguments below. The Coanda-1910 has been very seriously challenged as to its supposed status as the first jet, a relatively recent claim. The acknowledged first jet is the Heinkel. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Coanda

message: I changed the first sentence to plural.  Sounded better. Spaomark 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aircraft is the plural per http://www.answers.com/aircraft&r=67 Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: I have searched around and can find no mention of this. Since the shuttle is more or less belly-up during launch, it seems counterintuitive that the lift surfaces would be of any help. In fact, it seems the opposite would be true. I would suggest deletion of this if the author can not provide citation. BigDaveB (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jet aircraft#Other_jets|Space Shuttle aerodynamic lift during launch]]

message: Every book and article I have read on this subject matter, give each of these men credit, not just Whittle. I suggest that you rewrite, stating so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  co invented 

message: The history section mentions that the first manufactured turbine jetplane was the Heinkel He 178 turbojet prototype of the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), piloted by Erich Warsitz on August 27, 1939. I've got an article by Sir Frank Whittle here in an old aircraft magazine, entitled 'Contact' The Magazine for Air-minded New Zealand. Feb 1954, which contains a section wherein he discusses this, relating to the question of whether the Germans flew the first jet. He writes that in the sense that they got one off the ground for a few minutes but that if it was a question of the first flight of an efficient and successful airplane then no, and adds that Britain was certainly first in the field. He describes the test flight of the Heinkel on August 27 1939, saying; "A tiny single-seater jet Heinkel -the HE.178-flew for ten minutes in Germany on August 27, 1939, four days before the invasion of Poland. What happened on that flight is a mystery to me; but the engine was not further developed, and the plane never went into production."
No mention of the Italian test flight mentioned in this article either, but Frank Whittle would have been aware it, it apparently having been heralded internationally as the first successful jet flight at the time according to the linked article, and may not have counted it as a successful flight for similar reasons to the above.
I think it's worth noting in the article, if he's correct, that the Heinkel, while the first manufactured jetplane, was not successful, only flew for ten minutes, and was then not continued. And maybe something similar for the Italian prototype test if details can be determined.Number36 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: During its initial flight tests the He 178 was, due to the low power of its engine, unable to fly on its original set of wings and it was only after a new larger set of wings was fitted that it was able to become airborne. It was therefore a very marginal aeroplane, whereas the Gloster E.28/39 was a perfectly usable and practicable aircraft from the beginning. The He 178 was designed for a retractable undercarriage however it was fixed in the down position and the wheel wells faired-over for all the flights, and so the aircraft was never able to demonstrate the performance advantages of jet propulsion whereas the E.28/39 was soon achieving speeds equal to or better than the fastest contemporary piston-engined fighters and with better engines was eventually able to exceed 500 mph, and reach altitudes of around 40,000 feet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hey I Think I  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.83.141 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIGEL BROWN 

message: Coanda's 1910 aircraft was an attempt at a ducted fan. He described it as such in painstaking detail in several patents (British patent #GB191112740(A), Swiss patent #CH58232(A), etc). Aviation journals and magazines which covered the air show described it as a ducted fan as well(Cassier's Magazine (1911) Volume 39, page 199; Popular Mechanics March 1911 page 359; Technical World Magazine (1911) Volume 15 page 615; Aircraft (1910) Volume 1 page367). Coanda didn't change his story and start claiming it was a jet until others had invented jet engines; and when did he had a great deal of trouble keeping his story straight. Does anyone really think he should be credited with building a motorjet when there's no evidence whatsoever that he did, and a huge mountain of evidence that he didn't?Romaniantruths (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: verifiable reffrences are needed in order to make an edit of the article. please understand if we don't take your word for it 79.113.9.72 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Coanda was a jet, acording with most of qualified scholars who search on the subject, and the endless talk on "Coanda-1910" page clearly show that. Fact that some unreliable and not qualified ones may disagree, its another thing, but we should stick with the facts and dont go with some stupid bias again and again, its unproductive and will just lead to a war all over all kind of wikipedia articles  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.185 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as there are sources which agree that the Coanda-1910 was a jet, there are sources which say that it was not a jet; that it did not fly. Both sides of the dispute have good sources to cite. Our representation of the aircraft cannot state flatly that any of the disputed facts are indeed facts. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, this article cannot state with certainty that the Coanda-1910 aircraft was the first jet aircraft. Gibbs-Smith and Winter performed extensive historical research and determined that it did not fly, ever, and that it did not have combustion in the air stream, a requirement for flight in air, as without it there would not be enough thrust. No matter who else says that the aircraft was the first jet (quoting Coanda's assertion from the 1950s and '60s), these two giants of aviation history are enough to stop us from being certain. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: If you have an issue with Gibbs-Smith status as a reliable source take it to the appropriate forum for a third part opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coanda not a jet

message: I will post some references (there is an abundance of them on "Henri Coanda" and "Coanda-1910" page, and i hope the personal bias of some peoples will not stop to be added
*http://books.google.com/books?id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=I1t9TMnOAtOQjAedztzSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.76 (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including of Coanda -1910 

message: Even if Coanda 1910 had used just a ducted fan powered by a piston motor, the overall engine fits the definition of a jet engine (see below) and in consequence the picture of the airplane has to be added. Coanda 1910 used oxigen to burn fuel and produced a backward discharge of gases that pushed the plane forward. This is in the definition of a jet engine.
"Definition of JET ENGINE
: an engine that produces motion as a result of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid; specifically : an airplane engine that uses atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and produces a rearward discharge of heated air and exhaust gases" source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jet%20engine 
"jet engine
1. An engine that develops thrust by ejecting a jet, especially a jet of gaseous combustion products.
2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems." Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+engine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'jet' engine discharges gasses rearwards through a propelling nozzle in the form of a high-velocity jet, hence the name.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to the def. in dictionary, Coanda 1910 was a jet plane 

message: There is enough power to fly a ducted fan jet engine. If you do not believe just take a look at this aircraft that flew in October 1932.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni
"Once again, this article cannot state with certainty that the Coanda-1910 aircraft was the first jet aircraft. Gibbs-Smith and Winter performed extensive historical research and determined that it did not fly, ever, and that it did not have combustion in the air stream, a requirement for flight in air, as without it there would not be enough thrust."(Binksternet)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planes with ducted fan engines can fly. Binksternet is wrong as usual 

message: User:MilborneOne Okay, we're here now. Can you please speak out? What's your beef with Coanda? Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, Coanda was a rather clever man in his field. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Because this is an article on the jet engine which the piston-engined Coanda 1910 is clearly not, refer to the Coanda-1910 article for more information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry this is an encyclopedia we dont add pictures for the reader to ponder over we use reliable sourced information. So as the Coanda-1910 had nothing to do with the development of the jet engine either directly or by influence then it would be misleading to add it. Refer to the Coanda-1910 talk page for more information, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Because jet engines dont work the same way as Coandas piston-engined Turbo-Propulser, have a read of the Coanda-1910 talk page not much point in repeating the same discussion here. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coandă-1910 

message: The article claims that "[t]he turbojet was invented in 1939". While the exact date on which the turbojet engine was invented is debatable, it was unquestionably before 1939, since Frank Whittle was testing a fully operational turbojet engine in 1937, having developed his design many years earlier. The article should be updated. BertyRussell (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That was changed by an IP in October 2019, and looks to have been either sneaky vandalism or incompetence. Thanks for spotting the discrepancy. BilCat (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of invention of the turbojet