On the Coandă-1912

In 1910, Romanian inventor Henri Coandă demonstrated an early jet aircraft, which worked, but crashed, due to the pilot, Coandă himself, being unprepared for the power of the engine.

During the machine's short flight, Coandă was able to observe that the burning gases from the engine seemed to hug the sides of the aircraft very closely and this is what seemed to cause the fire. He (and other scientists) spent many years researching this effect, which is now known as the Coandă effect in his honour.

Coandă did not pursue this line of development of the jet engine.

Suppose that he had. Suppose that, after about two years of work, he built a new motorjet aeroplane, with the exhaust in the rear of the vehicle (to reduce the chance of the aircraft catching fire). With the pilot/inventor better prepared for the engine's power, the Coandă-1912 doesn't crash, and the jet age takes off before WWI... well, maybe.

Could the motorjet become a practical means of powering, for example, a WWI Scout/Fighter plane?

Could Cunnell and von Richthofen have flown primitive jets against eachother, or would the world still have needed to wait for the turbojet, before jets became more than a curiousity? If the latter, would turbojets have been developed earlier than in OTL?
 
Had Coanda invented a "pusher" configuration, his motorjet concept might have been much more successfull. That being said his planes would have been more dangerous than "conventional" methods and with few benefits. I think that come WWI you'd see aerial technology advance rapidly to take advantage of Coanda's technology with pulsejets being the next logical step.
 

Archibald

Banned
In 1910, Romanian inventor Henri Coandă demonstrated an early jet aircraft, which worked, but crashed, due to the pilot, Coandă himself, being unprepared for the power of the engine.



Suppose that he had. Suppose that, after about two years of work, he built a new motorjet aeroplane, with the exhaust in the rear of the vehicle (to reduce the chance of the aircraft catching fire). With the pilot/inventor better prepared for the engine's power, the Coandă-1912 doesn't crash, and the jet age takes off before WWI... well, maybe.

Could the motorjet become a practical means of powering, for example, a WWI Scout/Fighter plane?

Could Cunnell and von Richthofen have flown primitive jets against eachother, or would the world still have needed to wait for the turbojet, before jets became more than a curiousity? If the latter, would turbojets have been developed earlier than in OTL?

That's an idea I've toyed with many times. I like it very much (although the motorjet was bulky, unefficient voracious and heavy, it is a jet engine after all!)

I've tried to imagine some mid-30's bombers (Martin B-10, Heyford, Farman 222...) with motorjets instead of propellers.
 
My gut feeling is that even with a working jet engine you'd still have to wait for airframe design to catch up. I'd think a thousand HP jet-powered "string bag" would tear itself apart in combat conditions. Plus the jet engine itself will go through years of teething troubles before it becomes reliable and safe, as OTL. Therefore jet WW1 is unlikely, IMO.

However, if this gets a "jump start" going on jet development you may well see them emerge much earlier than OTL. At least in time for WW2 jet-jet combat, possibly in time for jets at the start of the war at least as short-range interceptors. That alone would drastically alter air combat as jets make air defense >> attack.
 
My gut feeling is that even with a working jet engine you'd still have to wait for airframe design to catch up. I'd think a thousand HP jet-powered "string bag" would tear itself apart in combat conditions. Plus the jet engine itself will go through years of teething troubles before it becomes reliable and safe, as OTL. Therefore jet WW1 is unlikely, IMO.
You're limited by piston-engine tech of the time. According to wiki, Coanda's was a 50hp, and a '30s Italian plane with the same type of engine was 750hp.

I guess the question is, how efficient are motorjets relative to propellor-driven aircraft? Do they have any notable advantages? One i see is a motorjet wouldn't need interrupter gear, no matter where the gun(s) is/are mounted.
 
I guess the question is, how efficient are motorjets relative to propellor-driven aircraft? Do they have any notable advantages? One i see is a motorjet wouldn't need interrupter gear, no matter where the gun(s) is/are mounted.
According to wiki, motorjets provide more thrust for equivalent engine power than a propeller. Of course, you can also have the same engine powering both motorjet and propeller- this is what was used for the Russian MiG-13 and Su-5 fighter projects, both of which were capable of in excess of 500 mph, 70 mph faster than the Yak-9U with the same engine (Klimov VK-107, 1650 hp).
 
You're limited by piston-engine tech of the time. According to wiki, Coanda's was a 50hp, and a '30s Italian plane with the same type of engine was 750hp.

I guess the question is, how efficient are motorjets relative to propellor-driven aircraft? Do they have any notable advantages? One i see is a motorjet wouldn't need interrupter gear, no matter where the gun(s) is/are mounted.

I misread the wiki. It's 50 HP at 1000 RPM. New father. Not sleeping. Otherwise would have realized 1000 was far too much anyway. :eek:
 
Top