Talk:Timeline of jet power

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

List

This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Nice article, although someone with a strong british agenda added remarks which would be better left out Stephan Schmidt

Agreed, and that was practically their only addition to my original content. Removing! Maury 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't The first American turboprop was the General-Electric T-31?

Scope?

'jet power' is a very broad term.

Rockets, scramjets and the aeolipile are all jet engines.

If the article is about airbreathing jet engines it should probably say so; if it's only about gas-turbine based jet engines then the ramjet stuff needs to go.

But I think the article is talking about airbreathing jet engines, in which case scramjets need to be mentioned.WolfKeeper 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind, I think all jet propulsion vehicles have to be included.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition in dictionary, Coanda 1910 was a jet plane

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. 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.

Coanda 1910 was not a turbojet aircraft but definitely was a jet plane.

"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

All of this has been hashed out at the Coandă-1910 talk page where consensus is that the Coandă-1910 as shown to the Paris public is not known to have exhaust routed to help thrust. The aircraft never flew. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda 1910 was a jet engine working in the "Cold Thrust" regime, at least

Cold Thrust - Hot Thrust; Both regimes = jet propulsion

According to this page http://modelingmadness.com/scott/axis/ity/campinipreview.htm Campini Caproni jet plane could fly at 200 km/h using just the compressor, without injecting fuel and igniting the mixture.

"On the cold thrust alone, the Campini Caproni was capable of speeds over 200 kph, however with the addition of the 'afterburner', speeds easily doubled to 400kph."

In case Coanda had not injected and ignited fuel (or exhaust gases from the Clerget engine that turned the compressor) his Coanda 1910 power plant would still have been a jet engine working only in the "cold thrust" regime.

Hobbyists often use cold thrust jet engines (ducted fans powered by piston engines) for their model planes.

At the Coandă-1910 talk page the consensus was that the Coandă-1910 as shown to the Paris public was little more than a ducted fan driven by a piston engine. The aircraft never flew. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda 1910 used a turbine not an ordinary ducted propeller

1) There is no consensus whether Coanda-1910 flew or not, as user Binksternet, try to mislead people. 30 years latter a similar design " was capable of 200 kph on cold thrust and 400 kph with the burners active" ( see http://www.meteorflight.com/wps/meteor.nsf/pages/jet_age-campini_caproni ). In theory Coanda-1910 could have flown using just the cold thrust regime.

2) It looks like user Binksternet is not aware that Coanda-1910 used a kind of turbine that would have produced no thrust (unlike a propeller) if it had rotated in open space (not enclosed in a tube). Amongst other publications, a 1952 English article in "Flight" clearly talks about "Coanda Turbine" (see http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1952/1952%20-%200480.html?search=coanda ) also a 1910 picture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coanda_turbo-propulseur_1910.jpg ) shows the turbine used by Coanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk)

This is an encyclopedia - not Fantasyland. The ideas you propose are only unhistorical but against common sense. "Turbine" is obviously a inaccurate here, even if not deliberately misleading - see any definition of turbine. A turbine "extracts energy from a fluid flow". The Coanda "turbo-propulseur" derives all its energy from the power of the internal combustion engine, so it is very simply not a turbine at all. The equivalent part in the Campini-Caproni is equivalent to the compressor in a tubojet, not the turbine. Apart from the consensus of practically every engineer who's ever looked at the Coanda's system that the thrust it could have generated would have been minimal, and certainly not enough to have enabled the taxiing aircraft to have reached flying speed - why, if the machine had achieved any success at all, did Coanda abandon it? He was a competent designer who went on to design quite a few successful aeroplanes, all with conventional propellers. SO unlikely if the bold idea of the "turbo-propulseur" had been anything but a total failure. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]