First Jet airplane flys in 1910!

I was looking on google for information on new jet engines when I come across a site the really took me by surprise... It said that the very first jet engine was made back in 1910 by a Romanian inventor name Henri Coanda and actually flew a jet airplane on December 6, 1910! Although I was very skeptical since the site didn't seem too reputable... Here it is, it has cool pics of the airplane: tanks45.tripod.com... But since it sparked my brain, I did a little more research on Henri Coanda to see if he was for real ... and found him here; en.wikipedia.org... . This real begs to ask the question on how the world would have been different if Mr. Coanda got the money to continue his research... or how different World WAR I and II would have been...

[edit on 30-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

This is not a "jet" as we commonly consider them. What we consider a jet (and what Whittle produced) were gas turbine engines using no completely enclosed combustion chamber. This design was nothing more than a standard internal combustion engine connected to a ducted fan rather than an exposed prop. There is no advantage to this particular design over a standard gas/prop design.

Although this isnt on the same level as Whittle's jet, you have to remember that this was in 1910, almost 30 years before the modern jet engine as we know it. The idea is basically the same, its like comparing the Wright Flyer to the P-51... Same thing only one is the first primitive step while the other is much more advanced.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
Yes, although this isnt on the same level as Whittle's jet, you have to remember that this was in 1910, almost 30 years before the modern jet engine as we know it. The idea is basically the same, its like comparing the Wright Flyer to the P-51... Same thing only one is the first primitive step while the other is much more advanced.

No, the idea is fundamentally different. The airplane mentioned lacks each and every single advantage of a gas-turbine jet engine. In fact, it should perform worse than a regular propeller driven aircraft with the same engine.

Well anyway, i found a video if anyone is interested. discoverychannel.co.uk...

P.S. Starwars51 I would like it for you or anyone else to explain it to me why you think this engine would be worse then a propeller...

[edit on 31-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

P.S. Starwars51 I would like it for you or anyone else to explain it to me why you think this engine would be worse then a propeller...

[edit on 31-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

By placing a duct around the prop you increase weight and reduce the practical limit on the size of the prop. Also, multiple blade fans hurt efficiency, especially at low altitudes and speeds (I doubt that you could go very high or fast with a 50 hp engine).

The video's mention of flames from the front imply that there was some sort of burner in the nozzle, which would improve power somewhat, although again at the velocity that a 50hp engine could move air through that duct I doubt it would be signifigant. A larger engine would be a *much* more efficient use of that fuel.

Think about it this way, if this really was an improvement on a standard piston engine/prop aircraft, why did no other airplane follow his lead? Not that it wasn't an innovative idea, but it wasn't an improvement on the technology of the day. If not for the work of others years later, we would likely still look at it as a very bad idea.

I don't about that, but I do know that Nazi Germany did develop jet engines decades before anyone else did, except Japan, who got the blue prints from the Nazis as part of a deal.

I think there is a history channel program on this, I saw the ads of them recently.

Surf

Its getting late... I'll look for some more info on his "jet" engine tomorrow so we can analyze it in detail ... then I think we can make a good comparison between it and a propeller. Funny think is that every site I have been to so far about Henri Coanda keep naming him the father of the jet...

The coanda aeroplane does though have a modern equivalent in the form of the ducted fan, the principle could even be extended to include high bypass turbofans such as those which power every modern airliner. Although the execution was not quite there Coanda does deserve recognition for being the first to try and aopply this principle to flight.

I found PROOF that his engine was better then a propeller...
AND it was an early JET...

"The engine was the real innovation, though, and it is lost to the aircraft industry that development was not further pursued in 1910. Coanda's 'air-reactive engine' was housed under a cowl and was comprised of a four-cylinder, water-cooled, gasoline-powered engine rotating at 1000 rpm. Through a gearbox, the engine turned a compressor at 4000 rpm. An obturator (a device that opens and closes similar to an iris in a camera) remotely-operated by the pilot was found in front of the compressor to regulate the flow of air into the compressor. The compressor exhaust entered two ring-shaped burning chambers located on each side of the fuselage. The gasoline engine's exhaust and additional fuel was also ported into the chambers. The combustion of this mixture exhausted from the chambers down the steel-sheeted plywood sides of the Coanda-1910 producing a thrust (220 kgf) much greater than would be available from the gasoline engine and a propeller alone."

From : www.allstar.fiu.edu... (The last paragraph)

I knew it, i just had to find it in writing...

As for more proof, he was credited as the inventor of the Jet in 1956.

"1956: In New York, Coandă was honored as the inventor of the first jet airplane: one speaker lauded him as "the past, present and the future of aviation."

From : www.iridis.com... (Under awards and medals)

[edit on 31-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
I found PROOF that his engine was better then a propeller...
AND it was an early JET...

Like I said, if you burned fuel in the duct it would have increased power over what the pistion engine was capable of producing (that wasn't in the first web page you posted), but it would still be less power than if that extra fuel had been consumed in a larger engine.

I did not inted to imply that this wasn't an innovative idea, and if some people want to give him credit for being the father of the jet - so be it. With the addition of fuel being burned in the duct it is (depending on your definintion) a jet engine - but it still lacks the advantages of what we know consider a jet a to be (turbojet, turbofan, etc.).

But by the same token Whittle's centrifugal type engines were a far cry from todays jets. Coanda used a normal petrol type combustion engine to power his device because that was the only way to do it but the principle was still there, as you acknowledge. The advance made by Whittle was that he got away from this and then German design moved it on even further with the axial flow arrangement which became universal during the 1950's

In my opinion they are all jets but realised in different ways. The Coanda was propelled forwards by jet efflux therefore it was a jet, if a very primitive one.

The ducted fan, although related, might even be seen as a step backwards because there is no burning or jet efflux involved.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by waynos]

its absolutely amazing at the information i can find around here
and this thread is actually Reasonable; Credible, Believable

i learn more about History every day thanks to you guys


most threads on here are "questionable, credulous, or plain unbelieveable"

but this thread strikes me as logical discussion on verifiable historical events

Good Job guys
Keep up the good Research!
i never knew Coanda was the inventor of the first primitive jet-like engine

Now i Know!
Thanks guys

hehe thanks Muzzleflash, I always try to post something that makes sense.

Now for back on topic, well again nothing is ever perfect the first time around so why should Coanda's thermojet be any different ... the basic idea of compressing air and burning it to provide thrust is there, the basic principle of a jet. Although it does not have some later inprovements that we know of in modern engines, its still a jet in that sense, like you guys said. Too bad he didnt the funding to continue his research, im sure he could have made some changes to make it better.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

originally posted by: beyondSciFi
hehe thanks Muzzleflash, I always try to post something that makes sense.

Now for back on topic, well again nothing is ever perfect the first time around so why should Coanda's thermojet be any different ... the basic idea of compressing air and burning it to provide thrust is there, the basic principle of a jet. Although it does not have some later inprovements that we know of in modern engines, its still a jet in that sense, like you guys said. Too bad he didnt the funding to continue his research, im sure he could have made some changes to make it better.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by beyondSciFi]

The Caproni Campini N.1 also used a thermojet comprising an Isotta Fraschini L.121 R.C.40 piston engine driving a three-stage, variable-pitch axial compressor with an afterburner. Compared to the Heinkel He 178, the world's first jet-powered aircraft, the N.1 was slower because its piston engine was propellerless like the one that powered Henri Coanda's airplane.

a reply to: beyondSciFi

Wow my brotha ... this is thinking waay outside the box!

Bravo, and thanks a bundle truly