This is a real oddity, and I still can’t wrap my head around it. In 1910, a Romanian named Henri Coandă built and flew the world’s first jet aircraft. Yes, 1910! That’s two whole decades before Frank Whittle. And less than a decade after the Wright brothers!
Caveats: when I say “jet”, I mean “thermojet” — it was powered by an internal combustion engine, not a gas turbine as with a turbojet, which is what most people are talking about when they say “jet”. But a thermojet is still a jet: it works on the reactive principle, by combusting compressed air and fuel and exhausting the gas at high velocity, which imparts momentum to the aircraft in the opposite (ie forward) direction.
And when I say “flew”, I mean “crashed and burned”. After exhibiting his aeroplane at a Paris aeronautical exhibition (where the accompanying photographs were presumably taken), Coandă was testing the engine on the ground at Issy-les-Moulineaux on 16 December 1910. It turned out to be more powerful than he expected, and the aircraft took off briefly — how briefly is not clear — and then crashed. Coandă was not a pilot and was lucky to escape with only minor injuries, especially given the flames streaming from the engine; his aeroplane caught fire upon impact.
But the jet engine was not the only innovative feature of this remarkable aeroplane. Consider the wings: there were only one-and-a-half (ie, a sesquiplane rather than a biplane); they were partly of metal construction; and there were what sound like slats on the leading edge of the upper wing — which also stored the fuel! This was all too much, apparently; although he went on to a successful career designing aircraft (for Bristol, among others), Coandă couldn’t get anyone to take interest in his novel design.
Was this a missed opportunity? Probably not, I’d say. Assuming that the thermojet propulsion did make the Coandă-1910 potentially faster than propeller-driven aircraft (opinions seem to vary — some argue that a thermojet would actually be less efficient), then this was a solution to a problem that nobody was yet aware of. Speed and maneuverability were not highly prized by the military at this time — stability was, for ease of observation (and maybe bombing) of ground forces. Also, airframes were still very flimsy — wood and wire — and were not up to the stresses that powerful thermojets would have imposed on them. Both of these circumstances had changed by the 1930s. Perhaps most importantly, the possibilities of “conventional” aircraft had obviously not yet been exhausted. There was no need to take risks with such an unfamiliar technology.
But, I still have this vision of swarms of Coandă-1917 jet fighters screaming into the sky over London to rip the heart out of the incoming waves of Gotha bombers …
Image sources: Centre for Telecommunications and Information Engineering, Monash University; Forţele Aeriene Române.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at airminded.org.
Possibly-related posts:
-
The engine seems to be essentially a piston engine and prop in a pipe – I think there would be a goodish gain in aerodynamic efficiency, but the real difference in performance between jet and piston comes from the fact that a turbine is the most efficient prime mover – this is why turboprop propulsion is a good idea, even using the turbine to spin a prop beats the hell out of a piston engine.
Chuck in the advantage of only having one moving part, and you’ll see why this design lags a true jet.
Interestingly enough, the pulse-jet (as in the V1) *had* been invented then – it’s just never been very efficient. It would have been a far better candidate for a WW1 jet. though. The real limiting factor on gas turbines was metallurgy – everyone had been aware that a gas turbine would be a good idea for years, but the science of high temperature alloys was lagging. Frank Whittle was convinced this was really because nobody had tried to do a gas turbine yet…which turned out to be the truth.
-
Hmmm, well I was about to say that it’s not just a propellor in a tube – at least according to all the online sources I could find. Eg, from the Monash site linked to in the post:
The “air-reactive engine”, invented and built for the first time by Henri Coanda, composed of a piston-engine with four cylinders, cooled with water; it developed 50 HP (Horse-Power) at 1000 rotations/minute. This piston-engine was connected to a rod which rotated the rotation multiplier; the movement was transmitted to the compressor which gained a rotation speed of 4000 rot./min.. In front of the compressor was placed the obturator – a device very similar to that of a photo-camera; this device could be controlled by the pilot such that the quantity of air that entered the compressor could be regulated. The air entered the burning rooms, (that had a ring-like section and were placed on both sides of the fuselage), from which, through some tubes, burned gases of the engine were evacuated and the propulsion force was generated.
This seems to describe the combustion of a fuel-air mixture, which would provide much more thrust than just a jet of compressed air would.
But, most of the descriptions on the net seem to be drawn from the same source (a post to a Romanian mailing list – although it does list further sources). Now, I’ve had a look in my Gibbs-Smith and here’s what he has to say:
it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it, the latter enclosed in a cowling which covered the nose of the machine and part of the engine: the fan was a simple air-fan driving back the air to form the propulsive ‘jet’.
Charles H. Gibbs-Smith, Aviation: An Historical Survey from its Origins to the End of World War II (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1985), 156.
This sounds like merely a jet of air! So who is right? It might be that Gibbs-Smith is missing something here, as he says the Coandă-1910 was ‘inevitably earth-bound’, which suggests to me that he was not aware of Coandă’s claim to have flown it briefly. But going against Gibbs-Smith is a tough call …
So now I don’t know!
PS Interesting about the pulsejet, I didn’t realise it was around so early.
-
Absolutely fasccinating. I had no idea that there was jet research, let alone actual attempts, happening that early.
Thanks for a very good read, and this information. I will be reading more of your site now that I have found it.
Again, thanks for this enlightening information.
-
I heard of this technology on Modern Marvels on the History channel. I was shocked, and longed for more info. I am thrilled that someone took the time to research this technology to assist the rest of us. Thank you for your time and effort. Great read!
-
From what I picked up researching this many years ago Coanda started with just a ducted fan blowing cold air and when this failed to generate enough force for take off further added the use of buring petrol (gasolene) which did get him off the ground enough to hit a tree! This type of engine with an internal combustion driven compressor) was effectively a forerunner of the WW2 Italian attempts to produce a jet (the prototype of which did fly). The Japanes also designed a suicide bomber using a similar engine.
All attempts to use the pulse jey as a practical propulsion for a manned aircraft failed (with the possible exception of the 1945 Riechenberg suicide aircraft which was merely a piloted V1) mainly because of the extreme vibration created by this engine. The Germans did build an emergency fighter using two pulse jets but soon abandoned the jets and converted the aircraft into suicide gliders (not deployed). In attempt to boost the performance of the P51D Mustang (to meet the threat of the new jet fighters) the Americans fitted one with pulse jets, one on each wing tip, again vibration caused the abandonment of the project. Putting pulsejets on an aircraft with WW1 construction standards would have been a disaster
-
Yes, I agree. And as I said in my post, there was just no need for jet propulsion at the time. Interesting about Coandă’s improvisation … it sounds less like foresight than the lack of it!
-
colanda’s engine compressed air and then fuel was injected into the compressed air stream in tubes along the side of the aircraft providing ~220 lbs of thrust
see g harry stine “the coanda effect” analog magazine july 1984
pgs 62-75“….when operating , the compressor sucks in air and compresses it inside the large cylinderical cowling. the engine’s exhaust is routed into this compressed air where it’s enriched by a spray of raw gasolien and then ignited. the resulting hot high-speed gases are then ducted to the rear out of two asbestos-lined jet pipe, one on each side of the molded plywood fuselage… it produced a static thrust od 220 pounds….”
ming
-
Thanks!
-
There is a full-size replica of this machine on display in the main terminal building of Romania’s Bucharest airport, in which country it and its inventor’s work are quite well-known and valued.
-
Thanks, I think I’ve seen a photo of that somewhere. It’d be very interesting if somebody tried to build a flying replica …
-
The Coanda jet engine was not an “improvization” how some people of the Perfid Albion like to believe !
There was not just a ducted fan but a radial compressor
in order to increase the air pressure before enter the combustion chambers .
In that times also ,an English company tried to buy the patent of an other original airplane Vlaicu from a Romanian inventor Aurel Vlaicu !
One of my ancestors sold to Vickers the invention of multi explosion chambers for guns and another Romanian inventor Gogu Constantinescu invented the synchron shooting thru the propeller blades using the “sonicity”.
If you wouldn;t sold us to the bolshevics (Churchill) at
Yalta ,we would one of the powerest nation in Europe
today !
I hope to see you for at least 50 years under communist rule too ! -
1. A previous commenter already mentioned the air compression.
2. I’m not British.
-
Sorry for misunderstand. For us ,all English spokers are the same .
After 50 years under bolshevics rule, while we learned
that all great inventions were made by Russian scientists
now we are bombed on NGC, Discovery , Internet &all media with stories where all (good) what does exist on
Earth is invented or made by some English blood genius.
(Or Juif by case ).
Did you ever heard of Traian Vuia ,the Romanian inventor
who designed ,build and flown his plane on Les Moullineux field ,near to Paris, in march 1906, first in the world ,with no ancillaries on the grund (like Wright brothers used to take off).?
He was delaied by a French guy who cheated him taking the money for a new engine and dissapearing for good…
He then build himself a CO2 engine instead.
Why I am so sensitive on this issue and seem to be so angry ?
Because I invented and patented the “Regenerative Isotherm” ,the “Active Energy Storage” and the THP Engine since 1992 and I offered them to all main car makers and energy industry ,but they are so pervert ,
like the Albion itself, that give me no replay but sure
steal the ideas.
The technologies were also offered to high governmental offices like DOE and EPA but they also keep silance like some thieves or gangsters.
Of course the patent laws are wrong and I cann’t afford to pay lots of money for internationale fees and I only have Romanian patents and I cann’t compete against the multinationale giants
operating militar and civil hugh governmental funds in their interest…
Look at “ipo.gov.uk.” ,click my name Ion Nemes and what you can find is just a title of one of my inventions,but without any content at all…
All those bastards play as I do not exist..they treat us as “untermensch” ,cursed their blood forever !
I suppose you know that the integrated intelligence surveillance system (total data espionage) operates in common
brotherhood by UK(&associates) and US…We are watched,heared and spied 24/24h and I can tuch my keyboard without fear to be stolen…
That is one reason of my intervention .
Sorry if the truth is painful
Sincerely -
Aviation suffers from the ‘not invented here’ (NIH) syndrome as much as most other areas of human endeavour and history.
As a keen student of aviation’s diversity, I find it fascinating how much the grand narrative changes when you travel from country to country. Natives tend to write the history books, and there is a normal bias to the home team in that. Meanwhile the imperial power of the time overlays their version of history and achievement. But anyone can go looking for more depth and the parallel achievements, ‘nearlys’ and also rans, and the internet is rich in such material, for those who bother to look beyond the first returns on any question.
Thank you for the pointer to Traian Vuia, an interesting story.
I would politely suggest anyone aiming to enlist support and have their unique history and achievements and records recognised might best not start with ‘For us ,all English spokers are the same .’
It’s also a common misconception that the honour, glory, and not least cash should go to the first or ‘best’ in any field. That might be just or in some way appropriate, but the reality remains that successful – by whatever means – remains the achievement that makes the difference.
Coand? and von Ohan deserve the credit they get, but they were stopped short by timing and circumstance and (sadly perhaps) their achievements mis-measured. However von Ohan’s work did feed into the postwar jet development, but I remain unconvinced that Coand?’s pioneering efforts had any actual direct heirs – as Brett says he was too early, and his work significantly different to the path jet development took decades later. Coand?’s aircraft and ideas are impressive and significant achievements, and it’s good to acknowledge his work, of course.
Regards,
-
Ah, Brett can have the accented ‘Coanda’ in his text, but I can’t in a reply. Teach me to try and be clever with accents.
-
As a resident of perfidious Caledonia, I don’t have any problem with being abused as an English speaker (“See you Jimmy”), but have we all become so polite (or enamoured of the’30’s) that we ignore casual anti-semitism?
-
Yes, I did see that, Ian, and Nemesis isn’t doing himself any favours here with that sort of talk.
-
All modern jet engines are in fact “thermojets” because the use the “double flux” technology .
The central air stream ,after burning chamber ,is too hot to hit the turbine directly and is mixed with the second
colder stream . A turbofan technology uses a third air stream ,much larger , produced by a ventilator and heated by the main exhausted jet !The efficiency increases when a greater volume of air is propelled with a reduced speed unlike the “pure” jet device ejecting a smal section,hot and high speed stream !This explanation is for those who mitigate the real value of Coanda’s invention.
I totally disagree with the imperialist opinion that “the winner takes it all” by any mean…
Now days a bastard British burgler (Dyson) ,was made “sir” by the pervert old lady for two stolen inventions from Coanda:the cyclon bagless vacuum cleaner and the bladeless fan.The shameless guy claims
he is a “great British inventor” but in fact, there is about Coanda’s old patents .He said he has no legal obligation to mention the name of Coanda .Yes, the patent rights are expired but the IP rights never expire.What would be if I copy “Hamlet”and make money for a book with the
same content but signed by myself ?Are we all creazy became ?
I want also excuse me for the hard words used ,especially to the honest working people, not to
the thievs and burglers.
A Happy New Year 2010 ! -
Dear Ion Nemes,
The lift of the plot of Hamlet from preceding ideas by Shakespeare is well documented – and serves well as an illustration of the tough reality of the world which intilectual property protection only seeks to mitigate. We remember Shakespeare – not the previous authors – because of what he brought to the existing story.Ideas are actually cheap, perhaps sadly. Success takes luck and determination. Coanda is appropriately credited for his ideas, and is rarely left out of the story. However it remains a fact that it was von Ohan and Whittle who brought the jet engine to practical fruition – Coanda did not change the world by developing his ideas, and you are trying to hard to reverse the modern jet engine designs into Coanda’s concepts, not to mention lacking understanding about what patent expiry means.
More importantly, being casually offensive on a racial and nationalist basis does your view no credit – following up with rude remarks about particular people is heading towards libel. Insulting heads of state is not a good move to winning supporters.
Unless you can adhere to the most basic of good manners and refrain from libel, I’m afraid there’s no point in trying to continue the discussion. More broadly, if you continue to be so rude and aggressive you’ll continue to find your overtures for understanding and employment rebuffed – and rightly so.
I wish you a more open minded and less nationalistic new year.
-
What JDK said.
-
I’m afraid that I need to dissent from JDK’s “Insulting heads of state is not a good move to winning supporters.” If the head of state in question’s not elected, then I’m all for it.
As for the rest, though, spot on. -
Sorry for the guys [Ian, Nemesis, JDK,etc] who forces the discussion into a completely other (and wrong) direction.I didn’t read they’r full posts (simply can’t) but I hope they are not Romanians.
Henry Coanda’s airplane was at that moment a really futuristic design.
As someone said before, it seems that after the test of this airplane he discovered the so called “Coanda efect”.But for sure we can not say he invented the jet engine.
A good source of information for me was an old Romanian Models Magazine named “Modelism” where are some detailed schematics of the plane and ducted fun propulsion.There were also some engine cross sections which helps to understand how it works. I have this magazine pages scanned. -
That would be interesting, although I don’t read Romanian! What was the original source for the schematics?
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://airminded.org/2005/10/07/jet-aircraft-of-the-belle-epoque/trackback/