Talk:Henri Coandă

English translation

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)

I've brought in the list of Awards and Medals from the Romanian-language site. However, I'm a little skeptical about its accuracy, especially (1) the vagueness of the first New York listing and (2) the actual names of the various medals. I see essentially the same list reproduced around the web, apparently first published in Romanian and then translated or mistranslated from there. If someone who likes to do the kind of research that actually involves hitting library archives rather than just browsing the web wants to work on one aspect of this article, that list might merit a good fact-check. -- Jmabel 08:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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)

User:Greyengine5 recently changed "the world's first jet plane" to "the world's first thermojet aircraft." There were also some other related edits. I believe he is subtantially correct (a thermojet is not the same thing as what we usually call a "jet"), but I do believe that this was the first aircraft to use jet propulsion of any sort. Unless I am wrong (and this is not an area were I am expert), the article should say as much. -- Jmabel 17:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From opening paragraph: "the parent of the modern jet aircraft." Hardly. His jet engine was nothing like a modern jet and his aircraft crashed on its only outing (amendment made to later section). I would suggest rewording along the lines of "one of the precursors of jet aircraft", but leave out 'modern' (he used a piston to to drive the compressor rather than a turbine) and 'the' (he was one of many, not The). What do others think? Emeraude 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Coanda himself described this 1910 aircraft in great detail in numerous patents. It was a ducted fan. No fuel injection, no combustion. This is also how it was described at the Paris air-show. His pathetic attempts to steal the cradit for other people's inventions 30 years later are just sad.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Romaniantruths (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WW2

Where and how did he spent World War II? --Error 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is practically devoid of any information on the man after the age of 30. Cripipper 12:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there is this reference I found on page 174 of Flight International: "Two years after the fall of France - towards the end of 1942 - M. Coanda recieved a contract from the Germans for the developement of a propulsion system for ambulance snow sleds, ostensibly for use in Russia..." Romaniantruths (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is probably related to the Sled he made for the Czar Back before WWI. The old sled is described in contemporary reports as being driven by a ducted fan like device (popular mechanics, Mar 1911). This makes sense since what I've seen of the Flight International article about the sled he designed to assist the Nazi war effort discusses Coanda using venturis to increase the thrust of his sled. This also raises some question about his post-WWII claims that his 'turbo-propulseur' was a motorjet and not just a ducted fan. Romaniantruths (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Henri Coandă - the parent of the modern jet aircraft

In the history of the aviation Coandă is credited for two major discoveries: The Coanda-1910 airplane and the Coandă effect. The revolutionary plane that Coandă built in 1910 was way ahead of its time by the fact that it had no propeller and it used a reactive jet for propulsion; The issue is that he was the very first to build a jet engine, regardless of the technology; of course, in today's jet engine, the technology used is the gas turbine and not the thermojet, but this doesn't change the fact that he was the first who thought of that.

A simple search on the references will guide you the same answer: Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft.Cristibur 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the sources in the article:

• [1] says "This was 30 years prior to Heinkle, Campini, and Whittle who have been considered the 'fathers' of jet flight"
• [2] is a dead link
• [3] is a list of his patents, so doesn't help us
• [4] doesn't state he's the father/parent of jet flight

So the only one of the references to discuss this subject says that Heinkle, Campini and Whittle are considered the fathers of jet flight. Let's look at a few more through Google. This Wired article describes him as the "father of the jet engine" (my emphasis) not jet flight or aircraft. This geek.com comment does describe Coanda as the "father of jet planes" but isn't a reliable source. This is another blog entry, so again not reliable for our purposes.

So, please provide a reliable source for this statement, otherwise its just original research. I've added a citation needed tag to it. Thanks, Gwernol 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Channel Europe [5] Cristibur 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That says "godfather of the modern jet aircraft", which is a colloquialism that does not mean the same as "father of..." or "parent of...". Even if we accepted this, we also need to look at [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] etc. etc. For every citation that Coanda is the "father of the jet age" there are 10-100 that say its someone else. Claiming "Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft" is simply untrue.

We don't give undue weight to minority opinions. I'm sorry, but this statement really can't stay in the article. I'm going to change it so that it reflects the facts: he was the inventor of the thermojet. Gwernol 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[16] (" ... a thermojet is still a jet ...") ... and still searching (I don't have too much time right now) ... btw no need to hurry about the changing, there will be quite a debate. Cristibur 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the thermojet is still a jet, that was not the question. What I'm disputing is "Coandă is credited today 100 % as the father of the modern jet aircraft" which is clearly not true. Its not even true to say that some people say he is the father of the modern jet aircraft; almost no-one makes this claim. Its such a minority view that it shouldn't be included in the article. Just stick to the fact, that he was the inventor of the thermojet. There is no need to make falsely inflated claims for him: let his real achievements stand on their own - they are very impressive. Gwernol 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed opinions on this (it's my blog which is linked to above, btw). On the one hand, the Coanda-1910 was powered by a thermojet; a thermojet is a jet; ergo the Coanda-1910 was a jet aircraft, and the first such. On the other, it was a technological dead-end which, as far as I can tell, had little or no influence on the aircraft designers who developed the direct ancestors of the jets we use today. I think it is fair to say that aviation historians generally wouldn't consider Coanda "the father of the jet aircraft" (after all, the Coanda-1910 never achieved sustained, controlled flight) -- whether that's fair or not can be debated, but it's the current consensus view which should be summarised in Wikipedia. Airminded 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks more and more like a popularity contest to me. Did you guys try searching Google in Romanian, German or Italian? The technological progress happens through trial, testing and error. And it happens in increments. Coanda had an accident, he should have continued working on the jet engine. Had he done so, I have no doubt that he would have reached the same solutions as Whittle and von Ohain latter. Unfortunately, at his time, the normal propeller engine had a lot of potential left, and Coanda could get no more funding for his unconventional jet engine. The funding appeared only when the propeller engine reached its limit, after 30 years. And it is possible that Whittle, von Ohain and Campini knew about his attempts. Even if the people forget, the scientific community does not forget easily. Campini even built his plane in the same place where Coanda built his. Saying that Campini was one of the fathers but Coanda was not makes no sense to me.67.81.182.37 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it's possible that Whittle, Von Ohain, or Campini knew about his attempts? He never made any attempts. The 1910 Coanda was a ducted fan design, and was described as such at the paris air show. All contemporary accounts make this clear, as they also make clear that he never got off the ground. The story about it being a jet didn't come into existence until after WWII, and is completely unsubstantiated. Romanianlies (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the the talk page for Coanda 1910 Romaniantruths (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And while you're at it look at the patents for Coanda's turbopropulseur. They describe the device in great detail, as patents do, but say NOTHING about the injection or combustion of fuel.Romaniantruths (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The very description is clear: "the plane used a 4-cylinder piston engine to power a compressor, which was intended to propel the craft by a combination of suction at the front and airflow out the rear instead of using a propeller. The nature of this drive system is clearly described in several patents Coanda took out on it in 1910(French), and 1911" this is NOT the description of a ducted fan, however someone tries to name it such. It is the description of a reactive engine. There is no fan or ducted fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.2.13 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the description is that of a ducted fan. Look at the diagrams and see the centrifugal fan, and the duct it sits in. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is. But I can see that at least you're in full agreement with me that it's not a jet. Romaniantruths (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Caravelle and Coanda - surely not?

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)

COANDA FRAUD

Does anyone have ANY evidence that this thing was a jet? Of course not. All the patents Coanda filed describe this as a ducted fan, all the coverage of the 1910 air show it was shown at describe it as a ducted fan. Coanda tried to use forged documents to grab the credit for others inventions, but his forgery was pathetic and fooled nobody.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) A 4-cylinder piston engine to power a compressor is not a "ducted fan" or a kind of "ducted fan". It is a thermojet. Is there any evidence for any fraud? I haven't seen such, but the very acid comments of a biased person who signs under "Romaniantruths" nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.2.13 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Try looking up the word thermojet, if you learn what one is then maybe you'll be able to understand why you're completely wrong. It has compressed air mixed with fuel and burned to produce thrust. Coanda's very lame attempt at a ducted fan had no fuel injection and no combustion. And it also had no usable thrust. Ample evidence of his sorry attempts at fraud are available to anyone who looks for them. You could try looking up Coanda 1910 on wikipedia for starters. Then when you see the clear evidence of his ridiculous lies you can let us know how wrong you were.Romaniantruths (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you mention the name and pages from some old magazines which nobody can verify what is exactly write there you prouve just nothing, just your own frustrations, Romaniantruths. Either you present the pages or the brevets, a facsimile or something, either you agree with mainstream believe and scientific world who say it was the first jet engine and first jet aircraft. Yes, it was a rudimentar jet engine and aircraft, a thermojet or air-jet, and not a turbojet, but there are too ramjets or scramjets etc. not just the turbojet, fact is he was the first who put a jet engine created by him on a plane (a revolutionary plane not just regarding the propulsion system) created by him. Do you think that if his invention wasnt true, academic researchers, French Academy and so on, wouldnt react and reveal the truth? Its just some british frustration who try to stole this reality, and make them look like the inventors of jet engine and jet planes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.215 (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can verify all these references on the internet, which is where I got them. Since you are having trouble performing this basic task I'll make it childishly simple for you(not that I am in any way suggesting that you are childishly simple, you are obviously a mature and brilliant individual). Go to the Henri Coanda page. Scroll down to the bottom. Click on "The Patents Of Henri Coanda". Read his patents for the turbopropulseur, where he describes it in his own clear and unambiguous words as to function. These patents describe a ducted fan, and not a jet. The other references can all be found on google books, which I assume you can figure out for yourself. These references mostly predate the invention of the jet engine, and Henri Coanda's shameful attempt to steal the credit for this invention from all those who played some role in it's developement. I might also add that websites repeating Coanda's various and inconsistant stories are not evidence of anything but the fact that a lot of websites do shoddy research(all they had to do was examine his patents.) You have made various points in your statement which really should be refuted, such as the way you set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of 'mainstream believe and scientific world', but I can tell from your note that you are an individual of rare qualities and high-minded Ideals who will see the error of your ways as soon as you follow those directions and read the references. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"You could try looking up Coanda 1910 on wikipedia for starters" -- of course, this page was heavily edited by you and thus it proves your point. Genius! Hey, do you know what Wikipedia cannot be used as reference, maybe exactly because of this little detail. Also tone down your rhetoric "lies", "lier", "shameful attempt", "Romanianlies" or "Romaniantruths" doesn't make you look like an impartial observer. man with one red shoe 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Try looking up Coanda 1910 on Wikipedia for starters because the Coanda 1910 is what you're whining about, Redfoot. There you can find some things called 'references', and something else called a 'talk page',which is where the Coanda 1910 would naturally be discussed. In addition, If you spent less time whining about my choice of words, and more time actually reading the posts you're commenting about you'd see that directions to finding all these references so childishly simple that you shouldn't have too much problem following them are listed above on this very page.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt find any "turbopropulseur" there, maybe you can be more specific and point out exactly where you find that patent, and give a direct link. There is anyway the French patent 418.401 from 1910 where the engine and turbine details are presented, and other pictures and details are in archives of Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace in Paris. And they never put in question the fact that Coanda 1910 had a jet engine, quite contrary they always presented it as an avantgarde aircraft with a new propusion system. Not the "turbojet" as is used today, but neverthless a "jet" engine of a more rudimentar type. Coanda presented his ideas about jet suported flight in 1910 at Superori Aeronautic School in Paris and in french magazine "La Tehnique Aeronautique", in june 1910.

I understand you have a favourite as the "father of jet flight", but the history is not always as we wish to be. Henri Coanda is the inventor of jet engine (air-jet or thermo-jet or motor-jet, how you wish to call it) and builder of the first jet propelled aircraft. Yes, an english and an german will create some 30 years later the "turbo-jet", a new jet more fiabile and powerful, but fact is that first "jet" was the one of Coanda, and except some fanboys from Britain (or maybe even Germany) who doesnt recognize that, scholars and scientific world never deny this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.189 (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 

Turbopropulseur is what he called his ducted fan. If you can't figure out which of the patents cover his ducted fan, try looking up the patent numbers I listed in the references and on the discussion page for coanda 1910, and on the Henri coanda page as well. They've probably been deleted without discussion again by another anonymous Romanian I.P. fanboy with a 1-hour editing history( do you know anyone like that, 79.116.207.189?), but they're still in the history. I don't see any French patent 418.401 listed under the patents of Henri Coanda, nor do I see where you've suggested this mysterious patent might be found. I see you also expect your stories about magazine articles and museum displays that supposedly prove your point to be taken as true. As well as your assertions about how the whole world views this shameful liar Coanda. Are there special rules that only apply to you for some reason? I see you have this Coanda as your favorite as the 'father of jet flight' but, as you say, "the history is not always as wish to be'. I have never made any assertions as to the father of jet flight other than to say that this Coanda person obviously isn't it. I also see you have referred to the turbopropulseur as an air-jet in your tendentious screed. Does this mean that you're willing to admit that there was no fuel injection or combustion going on in the Coanda 1910 engine?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you dont trust "my stories" about some magazines, why to trust yours? And why do you think the French Air and Space Museum who have that patent doesnt say that Coanda 1910 wasnt a "jet" aircraft? Why do you think peoples who write those books in the bibliography presented here (not by me) said Coanda was the inventor of the jet engine? Do you think they didnt study a little before to write their books, and you, an anonymus guy from wikipedia with a an agenda of your own, know better? The engine was clearly not a simple "ducted fan" as you try to imply, but a "motorjet, thermojet, airjet", however is called, and is clearly a "jet", wheter you liked or not. The one thing that's common to all "jet" engines (thermojet, turbojet, ramjet, scramjet, rocket if you wish) is that they expel essentially heated or compressed air to propel the aircraft. And Coanda 1910 cleary had such an engine. Observing the burning gases expelled by the engine Coanda discovered later the "Coanda effect" and based on that he have 2 patents (in France again), one about the "Coanda effect" and one about the "aerodina lenticulara"/flying saucer, a discoidal flying machine who use jet engines and Coanda effect to fly. And guess what, he send that patent in 1932 and was aproved in 1934, few years before Whittle or von Ohain obtain their turbojet engine working and years before turbojet rudimentary aircrafts took flight. So the only fraud is in your mind, serious institutions as French Air and Space Museums or scholars from Smithsonian from US clearly afirm that Coanda is indeed the "fatehr of the jet engine" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.70 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have told you repeatedly where these magazines are available for free reading on the internet. I have also told you repeatedly where to find the patents as well. Have you bothered to read any of them? You're the one who seems to expect any assertion you make to be blindly accepted as the truth. And why do you think that any patent filed years before the invention of the motorjet would say that something wasn't a motorjet? If there really is such a patent it would be filed with the patent office, not the Air and space museum, and it also wouldn't say that the Coanda 1910 wasn't a nuclear reactor, or a flying saucer, or a revolutionary new way to manufacture mentos (the freshmaker!). I also see that you're now trying to expand the definition of jet engine to include anything that emits a jet of gas. This highly dubious assertion would mean that the jet engine was invented by Heron Of Alexandria more than 1500 years earlier. But first things first; are you, or are you not, asserting that the Coanda 1910 burned fuel in it's 'turbopropulseur' (called a 'suction fan' by all those magazines you apparently haven't read), or are you arguing that all ducted fans are jet engines. If you are arguing the latter then we'll have to discuss the various ducted fans Octave Chanute discusses in Progress In Flying Machines, which was published before Coanda even started the seven years it took him to get through high-school.(This is also available for free reading on Googlebooks.)Romaniantruths (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, you are the exponent of why wikipedia sucks many times and is not seen as something reliable by many peoples. You erased some 7 books put by someone here, all saying that Coanda made an jet powered aircraft, then you told me to look at "googlebooks"? Are you kiding? Then you put some names of magazines and told me to search for them, without to present a link for them? The patent you said about, conveniently was "erased" then (how someone can erase stuff from that site?). And real scholars and scientists who work for prestigious institutions are all dumb and was tricked by Coanda now, and just you was smart and get how the things was? Those images and drawnings of engine and patent i said are in custody of Air Museum, where is a replica of the plain too. And guess what, i never saw someone from there saying what you say here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.209 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware the I am required to supply links to all references. The patent was removed from this page, along with many other references. The removal was done, without comment on this page, simultaneously with the addition of the seven references you're complaining about my removal of. I just reverted the edit that removed these patents (and the earlier references by people who actually covered the Airshow where this plane was displayed). If you feel assertions made here should all have links perhaps you can set a good example for me by providing an internet link to this jet patent you refer to and it's related drawings. Your claim that you never saw someone from Air Museum saying what I say here is something I will certainly consider, but what if you weren't there, or weren't looking, when they said it? I have no memory of refering to real scholars and scientists as all being dumb, or of saying that only I am aware of the ducted fan nature of the 1910 Coanda Biplane. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post a link to where I said this as well? Romaniantruths (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, you did remove several books writed by historians of aviations, who clearly searched materials for their books in archives, at Air Museums, they saw patents and drawnings and technical references, etc. I dont think they look at wikipedia for them and i dont see yet other books where Coanda 1910 is called a simple ducted fan not even remotly related with a jet. Majority of peoples back then (1910) dont even understand whats about with that new aircraft, and how can fly if doesnt have a propeller. It was something so unusual and weird that even Gustav Eiffel told to Coanda that is pitty he was born some 30 years too early for its time. It is your choice to not trust those peoples who write the books you erased, and you didnt said directly they are dumb, but erasing those books and not taking those scholars in consideration is an indirect conclusion. As well you try to imply that just the "turbojet" is a "jet", which is false again, there are diferent types of jets. As well, as i said, Coanda used the jet propulsion ideas and Coanda effect in early 30's (so before Whittle and von Ohain make their turbojets) for that "aerodina lenticulara" discoidal flying aircraft, and the patent for that was based on what he did and saw and discovered at Coanda 1910 aircraft, including during its short accidental flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.120 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Claiming these references were by "historians of aviations, who clearly searched materials for their books in archives, at air museums, they saw patents and drawings and technical references etc." Doesn't make it so. Did you think you could get away with saying this without anyone checking? It is entirely untrue. As I suspect are many other unsupported claims you have made here. However these claims can actually be checked. They're bogus!Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good point, how can a reference from 1910 prove that it wasn't a jet? If Coanda 1910 was one of the first (kind of) jets then people at that time wouldn't even know how to name it or how to categorize it, since it looks like there were other ducted fans engines at that time they normally put it in that category. By the way, as I said, I am not knowledgeable in the field, but I've seen pictures of ducted fan aircrafts and they don't even look like Coanda 1910. man with one red shoe 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redfoot, I see you've taken my advice to go to the Hemri Coanda page with your Questions. It is inspiring to see you benefit from my suggestions since, as you say, you are not knowledgible in this field. As to your question, how can a reference from 1910 prove that it wasn't a jet? Simple: it can explain in detail how the Coanda 1910 worked. The references I have repeatedly refered you and your very special friend to do exactly this. In our previous conversations about this topic you have refused to examine these references. How about now, old pal? Will you please take a look at them? Just for me? Pretty please? With sugar and spice on it?--- yours fondlyRomaniantruths (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't call me "Redfoot" please have the decency to use my username it's not that hard to type, it's the second time I ask you not to call me that. Second, yes, I will examine the references as soon as you'll provide the links. man with one red shoe 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule that requires me to supply you with links. Perhaps you can tell me where I can find such a rule in Wikipedia. But back to your question: Do you see, from my explanation, how a reference from 1910 can prove that it wasn't a jet? I eagerly await your response.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a new link, which clarify more the problem. A mention from there "the story and a model of the 1910 Coanda Jet are on display in the foyer of the Aeronautical museum at Le Bourget airport outside Paris". The author which can be acused of not knowing what he talking about stated that Coanda 1910 was undoubtely the first jet aircraft, and he clearly know what appear on that French Museum as well, where original story, planns, drawnings and a model are presented. If it wasnt to be a jet, i dont think he will write that. I hope as well that you wouldnt erase this link as you did with those seven history aviation book previously. And about the british patent from 1911 you show, there is not the original one regarding Coanda 1910, but another thing, related with improvments for a propeller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.23 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The seven "history aviation books" you refer to include a work of juvenile fiction, a pictorial history of Romania, A collection of Quotations, and several books about aviation which just repeated Coanda's post WWII claims (try checking the references). If you hadn't deleted all my references when you added them, they wouldn't have been deleted when I restored my references. You had already been warned about deleting references when you did this. The reference you just added consists of someone claiming that the Coanda was a jet without any substantiation. It doesn't even Identify who this person is. Is it you? And I notice that over the claim that the Coanda was a jet is a picture of the aircraft with a readable hand-written caption calling it a turbo-prop. These guys can't even make up their minds. Why do you think that this is a more reliable reference than all the aeronautical journals which covered the 1910 flight show? Or the patents for that aircraft? Or Charles Gibbs-Smith, a highly regarded aviation historian? Maybe because the title of the PDF calls it the facts? You keep making all sorts of claims, but still haven't shown any reliable evidence. Stop changing this page unless you find some evidence of your claims that is more compelling than the substantial evidence of their falsity.(good luck with that!)Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe Charles Gibbs-Smith is a highly regarded aviation historian, in UK. I can show too some highly regarded historians from Romania who write about Coanda. Thats why some independent aviation historians are more reliable, and i will add several books again (and i hope you will have the decency to not erase them again). Btw, i didnt erase anything from you before you erase those books (which wasnt even posted by me). About the PDF document, i suppose you didnt read it, it was writed by a very respectable american rocket scientist, and he mention about the Coanda-1910 and his all story, presented at Le Bourget Museum of Air and Space. He mention as well that it was undoubtly the first jet aircraft in the world and i dont think he would make such claims if he doesnt know about the aircraft and its history as was presented there. Nor do i think that peoples from that Museum who clearly saw (or even have there) the original french patent of Coanda will presented in a wrong way, or have Coanda much later drawning new stuff on the old patent (as you seem to imply)

I higly doubt that some writers for a magazine know better then him, or that a patent from UK talking about the improvements for a propeller is the same with the engine of Coanda-1910. As i said most peoples doesnt understand back then how the engine functioned, it was, as Eiffel said, some 30-50 years ahead of its time. And if you see how an aircraft look like in 1910, compared with Coanda-1910, you will see he was right. 

None of your sources present the original patent and some are just magazines, its like i read today journals to make an idea about something neither i, neither the writers there dont understand well. Thtas why i stick with aviation historians who have researched more in deep the problem. And some independent ones, not a romanian or a british —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.72 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I did read the PDF document, and understood it as well. It was NOT written by Stine, It just uses pictures supplied by Stine. The captions on the pictures are credited to Stine, but the only caption on a picture of the 1910 Coanda describes it as a turbo-prop! This should actually be a bit of a relief to you since the site calls the plane a ducted fan as often as it calls it a jet. All in all, the site refers to it as a jet, a turbo-prop, and a ducted fan(one time each). It also quotes Dec 10, not Dec 16 as the date for Coanda's alledged flight. It also asserts that Stine was merely repeating Coanda's claims. All this in about one page of text. Not that it matters much since This commercial site is not a reliable source anyway.

As for the patent(GB191112740(A)), read it. You'll find that the first paragraph explains that it is identical to Coanda's French patent of the previous year(the one you assert is for a motorjet engine). Coanda was taking advantage of the 1907 patent act which allows a one year grace period for filing a French patent in Britain and retaining the original priority date(may 30).

I am not Implying that Coanda drew new stuff on an old patent. I am quoting a reliable secondary source that asserts Coanda's presenting falsified documents.

I find it rather suprising that you assert that no english aviation historian is trustworthy. Is this a nationalistic attack on your part, or a racial slur? And if, as you say, you don't trust the word of any Romanians either then Why do you trust the claims of Henri Coanda in the first place?

Your mode of operation seems well established: Any Individual you use as a reference is automatically described by you as an aviation historian who has deeply researched the problem. None of them actually are. Any claim made in support of the jet story is proof because the claimant must know and must be telling the truth, otherwise he wouldn't say that. Any claim that Coanda wasn't the inventor of the jet engine is either biased because the claimant is English, or wrong because Coanda invented the jet so he must be wrong. In addition you erase references and add unreferenced statements to the page that don't even have the minimal benefit of internal consistency(the aerodina lenticulara couldn't pass it's wind-tunnel test because Coanda didn't have 12 jet Engines? Do you see the problem with this statement?).Romaniantruths (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is what Stine said too, and i will put a link to Smithsonian Museum archives, where Coanda aircraft is called directly "the world first jet". The patent you present, i see the title is something like "improvements of a propeller" or something like that, is not the patent regarding Coanda-1910, which you dont show it until now (and i doubt you can interpret corectly even that first patent). Thats why i trust more real and known aviation historians and scientist who surely have a better understanding of the problem. I put 2 links from 2 International Aeronautics and Astronautics simposions (i hope the scientist who was invited there are good enough for you), one of some german scientists (from Technology University of Dresden) who make 10 years of researches for their book (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3105820), as well the opinion held by Stine and those from Smithsonian Museum of Air and Space and other american and romanian aviation historians. I didnt wanted to use romanian sources not because i dont trust them, but to not look biased. In exchange you show me titles of old magazines (mostly which cannot be verified) where are writed couple lines about the aircraft and its propulsion sistem, which probably the authors have little knowledge, it was more like exotic news put in a corner of a page, without too many details. And of course, the Gibbs-Smith (second hand source), which obviously you trust more then Coanda for ex (first hand source). Why do you think that americans, germans, romanians, french, all acknowledge that Coanda-1910 was the world first jet (i agree, not the turbojet mostly used today, but nevertheless a jet), and just some brits consider is not? Is not that i am racist or something, far from me that, it was just an observation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.217 (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean you STILL haven't read any of the pre-WWI references? Why are you ignoring the only evidence from people who actually saw the aircraft, and heard the explanation of it's function from Coanda (before he started telling wild stories in a desperate attempt to grab the credit for the work of others)?

Building an ever expanding list of people who assumed Coanda was telling the truth but never examined his claims critically isn't a particularly productive endeavour. Have you found any source that addresses the many problems with his story? Have you found even one single source about his motorjet claims that predates the 1930s invention of the motorjet?Romaniantruths (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, you are really pathetic. Are you assume that lots of scientists and historian aviation are some idiots, and just you (or Gibbs and soem Royal british aeronautic institute know whats hpaened? The old magazines (which have couple lines writed about the plane, clearly having no idea whats about with it) are pretty much ussles, they just recorded the event. And did ever ask why just Gibbs said that, and all others from the other parts of the world go with Coanda? Wake up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.162 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The "old magazines" you refer to are technical and aviation journals. Since you characterize them as having, "couple lines writed about the plane", and,"clearly having no Idea what's about with it" you clearly still haven't read them. Why is it that you describe every individual who has ever said that this plane was a jet as an Aviation historian who studied the problem in depth and examined the patents. You have made false claims of this nature many times on this page. Your assertion that "all others from other parts of the world go with Coanda" is also demonstrably false. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Avrocar?

This needs explaining. Why is it notable that he designed something that was the same shape as the avrocar? So did the inventors of the discus, the frisbee, and the wok. Romaniantruths (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, your bias is so big that you become almost delirious. So now you compare a complicated aircraft with a frisbee just because they have somehow the same general shape, and, obviously, because was invented (again, for your despair) first time by Coanda? Whats next, why to talk about "clasical" aircrafts, because the birds (or pterodactils) have first the idea to have wings? This is the page of Henri Coanda and his life, realisations, inventions, creations etc. It is normal to be presented such stuff here, created by him or inspired by his ideas (as the Avrocar was inspired by his "aerodina lenticulara") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.120 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am genuinely gratified to see from your above post that you agree with me that comparing something to the avrocar merely because of it's shape is inappropriate. I will do you the favor of removing the offending comparison forthwith. I was unaware, however, that Coanda invented the frisbee, perhaps you could provide a link to this information? With warmest regardsRomaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I need to repeat myself, since you either are biased either have comprehension problems. I hope is the first one, but you need to control it after all, its embarasing. Coanda patented in 30`s a lenticular (discoidal) shape aircraft powered by some jet engines and using the Coanda effect. Decades later after that, Avro build a discoidal aircraft using Coanda effect for moving. If you consider that they dont inspire from Coanda, but from a frisbee, to make that Avrocar, then good luck in your plays with the coleagues from kindergarten, we dont have much to talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.92 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Avrocar is described on the Smithsonian website as emitting a blast of air straight down to provide thrust. In it's low-altitude flight mode the downward blast of air formed a "cushion" which held the Avrocar aloft in the manner of a hovercraft. Transition between this mode and it's non-ground-effect flight mode caused a phenominon refered to as 'tree trunking' which rendered the Avrocar highly unstable. This Doesn't sound like the Coanda effect to me, but maybe I'm just not comprehending you. I hope you don't find this too embarasing. What is the patent number for this revolutionary flying saucer you speak of? And in what country was it patented? Perhaps I would be better able to comprehend it's world-shaking inovation it I could read the actual patent. I am unaware of having, at any time, suggested that the Avrocar was inspired by the frisbee. Could you please provide me with a link to that statement? With The Highest Of Esteem And Warmest Of Regards--Romaniantruths (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of sources

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)

• Popular Mechanics March 1911. p. 359. a suction turbine that takes the place of the ordinary aeroplane propeller
  • This article calls the engine a "suction turbine".

Ok, i see you edited some posts, with no explanation, and re write some alternative history put there by another poster, entirely invented by him (the one with Coanda discovered the effect who bear his name in Eiffel wind tunell or something like that. Well, there is no such thing, and nobody said that until that person post that crap here, which you gladly restored. I am new here, i know that wikipedia is not usualy trusted by most of the peoples, is just a general reference for them, and that is precisely because such biased presentations and crap interpretations. I understand that a neutral point of view must be presented, but i wasnt able to see that here, but just an endless re edited text presenting just one point of view, of some british historian of aviation. About the article from that old magazine. Well, in that time aviation was just started, there was just few airplanes made by few peoples in few countries. All was their own inventions, with diferent styles, wings, engines etc. Nobody know much about this new appeared science, not even those inventors, and much less the journalists. An aircraft as Coanda-1910 was so weird and unusual compared with the other fews in existence, then was even believed it can fly, because it doesnt had a propeller. Except maybe Coanda, the inventor of the engine, nobody understanded well how that was constructed, and how functioned. The name "jet engine" wasnt even invented, didnt existed at that moment. So the journalists who had no knowledge and expertise in that domain, especialy regarding "jet engines" who was something beyond that time used the description they think they know and understand, and their readers might understand as well. Thats why we cant put that much trust in those couple lines writed among many others related with general science stuff in a magazine on that era, and the best is to look at more modern scholars and scientists and historians of aviation. They have studied the patents, the engine, the drawinings, the description of the plane, and have too the knowledge and expertise to understand what kind of engine or aircraft was. Thats why someone like Stine is better then a journalist from that time, who had no expertise in jet engines and just saw the aircraft and couple things about it, without to understand much what was about and who write in the terms he know. I hope that this was clear enough, and pathetic actions as erasing links to books or magazines with serious scholars opinion will not continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.43 (talk • contribs)

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)

No, it was more about Popular Mechanics, but since you mention Flight, look how they describe Coanda-1910 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1910/1910%20-%200883.html?search=Coanda%20Paris%20%20Flight%20Salon&tracked=1 A turbine driven aircraft with no propeller. I assume from this know Gibbs that aircraft was buyed by somebody too. I dont know what to say, and how much peoples from Flight knew about the aircraft. Not too much, as i saw, about the details of the engine. Its interesting what that guy asked too, about the use of 2 propellers in a kind of turbine, one moved by the exhaust gases of another (which is not quite Coand idea and engine) and the negative answer he received. Thts why i said that sources from that times are not quite reliable in the sense that they dont understand well the technical feats of some stuff. Aviation just apeared, and most peoples either dont understand much, either was use just with the "normal" airplanes they saw. I read too what Gibbs said, his reason why Coanda wasnt a jet is that if so, the flames will burn the aircraft and the pilot (so he dont know if Coanda added or not gasoline, just make an assumption that if he did, that can happen as he said). But precisely because of that Coanda added those metal plates, to defect the flames away from the plane body and "cockpit". He didnt use either the full power, and when he tried to verify the aircraft, this start to move on. Coanda said then that he was scared to see the flames not deflected, but curved around those metal plates and coming towards him and the plane, thats why he reduced the power and the plane who tooked off crushed. And thats why the aircraft was never saw again, sold or not to that misterious mr Weiman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.26 (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Gibbs-Smith

In this letter to the editor of Flight, published 14 October 1960, Charles Gibbs-Smith writes:

Might I suggest Mr Servian looks at pages 220-221 of my new book, where he will find the Coanda case discussed in detail. The extraordinary claim was not made until 1956; and the Coanda sesquiplane, which was shown in the Paris Salon of 1910, was disinterred from its obscurity.
I won't bore Mr Servian with the many details here, but he will see what a delightful claim it is when I tell him that the 'turbo-propulseur' (driven at 4,000 r.p.m. by a 50 h.p. Clerget) was mounted around the nose of the aircraft and was intended to blow back all round the fuselage, including round the pilot as he sat erect in his cockpit (begoggled, one hopes). If this innocent air (and plain air was all it was ever meant to hurl back) was turned into a burning jet, it would have been the most inelegant way of committing suicide ever devised.
The whole claim is naughty nonsense, as Mr Servian will see from the material I have set out in the book. There was never any idea of injecting fuel; the machine never flew; it was never destroyed on test; and Flight noted that it was soon sold to a Monsieur Weyman.
The claim said that after the disastrous crash (which never happened) Coanda wished to begin a 'second aircraft', but 'his funds were exhausted.' Within a year he was gaily exhibiting (in October 1911) a brand new propeller-driven machine at the Reims Concours Militaire, and then went on to a distinguished career in aviation.

(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)

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)

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)

Yeah, but is not convincing for me, beeing less to be trusted then romanian sources. And anyway Harry Stine is much more qualified then him, and is neutral too. As well dont erase anymore that PDF article (or any article, link, books who is about the subject etc.), is about Coanda effect. Yes, i know its bother you because it said that Coanda build and flow the first jet plane in the world, but its Stine opinion, which i think everybody agree its quite qualified in this matter. Its easy for me too to erase links and articles and present just one side of view, even to re-write the entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.40 (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Flight, 1955

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)

Flight, 1973

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)

Contemporary materials

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)

Yes, i searched too, but didnt find much, i find some page, but just couple lines of an article was presented, and the next page was missing unfortunately. I think the first aparition in Flight is the one with the pictures, where is said is a turbine-driven aircraft with no propeller, but the details are scarce next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.40 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bureau of Reclamation

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)

most of modern scientific community

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)

Heat shields

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)

Cease fire until RfC is done

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)

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)

Links

So, after getting called an idiot, I have now received threats over my recent edits. Any admins care to warn 79.116.208.237? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole IP range 79.116.xxx.xxx is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking notice of my plight, I'll keep a watch for that IP range. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• well, all crap said by Gibbs (who actualy i propose to be removed all) is unreliable, but i had, until now, the decency to let it there. Boyne is way more qualified then that delusional nut, and his correct quotes must be maintaned visible, wheter you liked or not. The same external links are viable and was in existence until you and your buddy romanianthruts start to mess up the article. So, to avoid unecessary wars all over wikipedia, just let aside your stupid bias and let the competent peoples to be saw here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.207 (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jet sleigh and flying saucer

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)

• first, your opinion doesnt count too much. Second, why dont you post that patent of flying saucer to be added, if you find it, to all peoples see it and make their own impression?
• there is some images with the patents, and interviews who mention the "aerodina lenticulara". I dont have much time now, but i will add them later on the article
• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7884468677144545541&hl=ro#

• http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg

• http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg

• http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg

• http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/6/aerodina-1970.jpg

• http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/7/aerodina.jpg