# Independance Day Aviation



## khatab (Feb 6, 2005)

Those are some great cliches....

I do like the film but there was one thing i wondered about..

Why were the only Aircraft that engaged the aliens F/A - 18's??

I mean unless he was Navy or Marine pilot, which would explain why  he was in an 18, but then if hes was airforce the chances are that hes was, well then he would be in a F - 15 or an F - 16...

Anyway it would have to really be the air force forming the bulk of the aircraft. And assuming any film production budget constraints leading to the inability to use mutliple aircraft types or to Comp Gen multiple bot aircraft of different types, then surely they should have been flying in 15's and at a push 16's???


----------



## ray gower (Feb 6, 2005)

I suppose the tactical reason is that the US has an awful lot of nearly new F18's in their tactical reserve. So many they were talking of replacing the Air National Guard's long in the tooth F16C's with them.

As for the film. I suspect they only had access to three or four aeroplanes, and those would be from private sources. A repetitive film overlay of four different fighters in strike formation would look very odd.


----------



## khatab (Feb 6, 2005)

The US Dept of Defence has an office that is specifically set up for PR and other such activities which involve leasing (in a manner of speaking) pilots and aircraft to Hollywood productions..

It would have seemed that with a theme as in ID4 the DoD would have no probs with providing aircraft for a feature that paints the US as the saviours of the world (in discovering how to beat the aliens) and that makes the 4th of July an international day of liberation... and this was the case until the ID4 story took a turn towards the Area 51 direction a which point the Us DoD with drew their support..
Maybe that explains it..

Remember how that poor pilot couldn't pull up in time and smashed into the energy shield?
Well I assume a real fighter pilot would have prob open air brake rolled onto back and pull max G's diving down from inverted..

Alternatively I don't know about the inbuilt f-by-wire limits of an 18 but I would have thought that pilot may have been able to pull past max AoA limit bleed speed fast and stall it in nose high position essentially flaring as hard as possible, then recover aircraft as he fell down to earth.. Anyway the second option is a bit of a guess, but diving would have probably been better than climbing..


----------



## ray gower (Feb 6, 2005)

Flying at a mile every 6 seconds (the burners were lit), the pilot ran out of air long before he realised there was something to hit, let alone time for the aircraft to respond to do anything he did.

As a rough rule of thumb work on a maximum +7/-5g for sustained turns for any aircraft and a second for every 200 knots airspeed for any 90 degree turn. 
While most fighters are stressed to achieve 9g or more, more than a second or two and at best the pilot will be unconscious, so the fly by wire systems severely limit duration.


----------



## khatab (Feb 6, 2005)

All that burners lit means is that he was accelerating, we don't know what airspeed was when he lit them or for how long they were lit..

And as for running out of airspace, well all the other pilots in his formation managed to aviod it and he was in close formation (ish) and so didn't have a too dis-similar amount airspace to play with.. plus from what I remember the sequence took quite a few seconds.. certainly enough to pull off some high G turns and get at least an 90 degrees change of vector.. 

Anyway I have seen an F/A - 18 do a square loop (bloody impressive, the condesation at each corner almost hid the aircraft) , and do high speed pass (prob 99% of mach and actually 100%  as i saw condesation shock wave cone around aircraft) pulling into a high - G climb straght up... (Fairford 2004).. so From the wat I see it he should have made the turn....


----------



## ray gower (Feb 6, 2005)

Some realise quicker than others, some aircraft aren't going so fast, some don't have the space for radical direction changing without ramming the idiot behind, some aircraft perform better (I had a Hunter that was always 30 knots faster than the rest of the squadron, no matter what we did) and some pilots are just not as good as others.

The manoeuver you are talking about is achieved by using thrust vectoring, as fitted to F18F variants, which is what they demonstrated at FAT. A case of brute force and stupidty over science. 

It doesn't break the basic rules, the aircraft takes a major change of attack and high forward decelleration, then uses brute power to force it upwards. To the turn is actually performed at comparitively slow speed and g forces are balanced by the decelleration, (bit like a hovercraft). It only works well when the aircraft is operating in ground effect.

It would also be a damned stupid thing to do in close formation.

Before you think it is an American invention (or even Russian, several of theirs can do it to) it is worth noting that Vulcan bombers had a primitive thrust vectoring system that was primarily used to improve performance at very high altitudes, however as it was controlled by pilots, they found they could use it to improve the aerobatics abilities (100 ton aeroplanes doing barrel roles and generally out flying F15's... frightening!). 
One was displayed doing a loop at Farnborough (1957 I think, I was young). It came in fast, took on a high attack and had to hold that until the burners could overcome the inertia and force her up and over. Not as immediate as the F18 display obviously, however the method of achieving the result were very similar


----------



## khatab (Feb 7, 2005)

That Vulcan manoeuvre you talk about sounds like a fantastic spectacle. I have seen one at Wellsbourne Airfield in Warwickshire, and they are impressive looking machines.

I have seen some footage of the Su - 27's through to the Su- 33's do manoeuvres that would cause even a person with limited knowledge of aerodynamics and no interest in aircraft to stand and gasp with astonishment.

But unless youâ€™re going to get into a furball the where Thrust vectoring comes into its own and the handy thrust vectoring R 73 Russian missiles, chances that you'll get shot down by F-15 and AMRAAM ( can't remember what the new BVR replacement is called) launched from 60km.

Anyway... I don't think that the F/A 18 I saw was the HARV  (thrust vectoring one) I saw two that day (Fairford 2004) and from program I remember that the first was F/A - 18 D and the other doing the square loop was the "Super Hornet" which is E or F.. and from what I know it doesn't have T Vect. although it has better performance (but don't quote me on that although i do believe I am correct)..

Good link to info..
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

The thing is that I just watched the sequence and the unfortunate pilot had some sort of systems failure which caused him not to pull up.... So I guess thatâ€™s why he crashed, faulty equipment..:alienooh:


----------



## ray gower (Feb 8, 2005)

*Very OTT!*

If you have never seen a flying flat iron let rip, then I can forgive you for being awe inspired by the relatively wimpy F18. 

To help the imagination. 
The Vulcan is about the size of a Boeing 737. First drawn in 1947 they joined squadron service in 1955.
On a scramble, the first flight (3 aircraft in formation) could be airborne in under 2 minutes, the next 30 seconds behind.
At the end of the drag they would pull up into a near vertical climb of over 40,000 ft/min. The number of fighters that can exceed this can be counted on your fingers. One is the F15, another is as old as the Vulcan, the English Electric Lightning. 
At operational altitude, 60,000 feet, they can wave two fingers at any fighter, being both faster and capable of out turning anything that can get up there (an even more limited candidate list, though the Canberra is slightly faster it is hardly going to shoot anything down).
When they were moved to low level strike bombing, a standard flight profile would be averaging about 400 feet and 400 knots. Again the number of aircraft that can do better is very limited: Tornado and Bucaneer being the main candidates and they are tiny in comparison. It was also found that in this role the Vulcans offered a radar signature smaller than the much vaunted F117, the then king of stealth.
And all this from an aircraft designed more than fifty years ago!

Altogether, one of the greatest aircraft ever built.

History lesson over


----------



## khatab (Feb 11, 2005)

With regards to statement 
"At operational altitude, 60,000 feet, they can wave two fingers at any fighter, being both faster and capable of out turning anything that can get up there"


The MiG 25 is a Mach 2.8+ interceptor.. so thatâ€™s only slower than the SR-71, and yes it carriers air to air missiles..


F 15 has an absolute ceiling of 100,000 ft (service ceiling of 60,000 ft which it gets to in 1 min) and flies at max of 1,650 mph at 36,000ft..
So you are right, it out performs Vulcan...

Su 27 65,000ft per min and mach 2.3 at 36,000ft.... also out performs Vulcan at altitude..


These 3 fighters, and i'm sure i could dig up some more that are more than capable of living with the Vulcan in pretty much any aspect of flight..

The reason other as you call them "whimpy" fighters do not compare on these figures is because such they were designed with other goals and performance targets in mind.. 

It's ridiculous to try and compare.. say MiG 25 to F- 16 or to compare F-15 to MiG - 29.. you have to compare like for like.. or as close to that as possible..

So saying that Vulcan outperforms at altitude most jets when it was specifically designed to be a strategic bomber is like saying Harrier  hovers better than a B-52, or a B-1b has a greater payload than a F-4. Hardly reason to be impressed..

Maybe it's fairer to compare it to the MiG 25  that was designed to intercept the SR - 71 and strat bombers.. Mig 25 made maiden flight in 1965..

And before you start saying that the Vulcan is old, well the cold war is over, if it wasn't you can be sure that there would be a lot of fighters and bombers that would eclipse the Vulcan.. also I refer to age of the MiG 25..

But i guess weâ€™re from different generations and therefore see things from a different perspective.. 

Nonetheless, the Vulcan is impressive looking although i don't much like the shape of the wings, nor the Lightning for that matter..
I believe aircraft were prettiest in the 80's..

I do believe the greatest are prob one from following list.. F-15, MiG 29, SR-71, P 51, B-52 (100 year's of service by time it will retired in around 2040), Su 33, MiG 15 (or F-86 Sabre) they all pushed the envelope of aviation in one aspect or another and were unique at thier time of doing it... Any


----------



## ray gower (Feb 12, 2005)

You should compare aircraft that are sharing service together. War makes no distinction for age.

The F15 was designed to perform best at between 20,000 and 48,000 ft. Performance drops significantly above or below this level. So while a specially stripped F15 reached 100,000 feet the only options the driver had were a very wide flat turn and to come down again. Mean while the V bomber has repeatedly proven in simulated dog fights that at or above its operational height it could out turn and out pace the F15.
Although initial rate of climb is slightly over 55,000 ft/min, the F15 takes 3 minutes to reach 60,000 feet (about the same as the Lightning). New variants may be a little quicker, but not much.

Nor have you taken the Vulcan's low level strike capabilities into account, where again it could outperform many aircraft of any jet generation. And that is the point- Even now it could outperform many aircraft 4 or 5 generations its junior, in roles it was never designed to fulfill and without modification.

Nor should you place great faith in missiles. The Russians launched 60 missiles at the S71 they brought down and as the Americans found out to their cost, missile trucks have a very low scoring record in aerial combat, which is why they rapidly bolted cannon to their Phantoms in Vietnam and developed the F16.

Must insist you remove the F86 from your list. It was a slug that struggled against our Vampires and Venoms when new and didn't improve even when they added Super to the title, when it was totally outmatched by Swifts, Hunters and even the humble Midge. 
MIG14 and 15 were both good though!

Would also suggest removing the B52. It is a classic, but never pushed any aviation boundaries.
Yes the marque will have flown a long time, but individual aircraft will not have achieved 100,000 hours flight time, certainly not with any original parts. It comes into the argument of 'is a vintage Model T Ford built entirely of modern parts and materials made yesterday still a vintage Model T Ford?

If you insist on American, then consider the Canberra. The world's and USAAF's first jet bomber, holder of more than 2 dozen speed, altitude and duration records during its 50 years of service? (Must have hurt to buy British)
The USAAF brought half dozen over last time the wings started to fall off F111's (late eighties), so they may well still have a squadron parked up and serviceable. I know we still have four serviceable PR9's.
Or perhaps the Harrier (AV8)?

Would also add the F16 as an all time great.

And the prettiest aircraft- The Mosquito


----------



## ray gower (Feb 13, 2005)

I've split this thread off cliches as it has little to do with Independance Day cliches.

Other than the observation than any film with a US fighter involved, invariably involves F18's, where as the others are flying either Skymasters or Phantoms


----------



## khatab (Feb 14, 2005)

The reason I believe that the B 52 deserves to be in the list of greatest aircrafts of all time is simple.

The B 52's same basic design was so spot on from the out set that the design will last 94 years when it is finally retired. Thatâ€™s a century of flight in "service" (very important distinction but I'm sure you appreciate that).  The thing is that we have only gone 100 years of powered flight.. So the 52 will be 2/3 rds as old as flight when it retires in 40 odd years. That is a phenomenal accomplishment and no other aircraft has ever or will probably ever accomplish such a magnificent feat. 

My admiration for the aircraft comes from many areas, aesthetics ( it looks awkward and i like that), I love the way it takes off without pivoting on rear gear - slight nose down attitude i'd say) but most of all I admire it because it hit the spot from initially design.

Yes the first and last B- 52 to be built will only share the same silhouette and under skin (and skin it self will prob be different) but that happens to all aircraft. Compare the first F- 16 to the current flock, or that Harrier for that matter... Anyway, given the pace of aviation progress you would think that a new monster bomber would have come along and knocked the 52 off top spot, but we'd be so wrong.



But if its cold war heavy powerful thundering leviathans that get your blood pumping, then I would have to say that one of the most impressive Aircraft I have seen is the Tupolev - 160... This is a supersonic strategic bomber with max take off weight of 606,261 lbs.!!!!! WOW!!!  and and 4 engines each rated at 30,843 lbs. static dry and 55,115 st afterburning.... Thatâ€™s combined 220,460 lb st afterburning.... BLOODY HELL!!!! Then again, it is the most powerful military aircraft flow with the most powerful military engines ever flown.... Not Bad huh


----------



## ray gower (Feb 19, 2005)

With grace I will let you have the B52 on your list. 
It may even be possible that one will reach 500K flying hours by the time the Americans decide to tie cruise missiles to B2s. (It is flying hours that are the killer, not age. Several of our Vulcans were ranging well over the 500K mark before conversion to tanker duties).
Personally I was always more struck by the B49 (the Flying Wing), only ever saw one and a couple of its turboprop brothers (B35), but as far as aerodynamics went they were extremely advanced machines.


----------



## khatab (Feb 19, 2005)

I agree that there are other things to consider such as Flying hours, number of cycles, counts clocked up by each engine etc.. 

Thing is, it's not the quality of the airframe or endurance of the engines before overhalus, or max number of cycles. . I was more impressed that the basic general design stood the test of time, be it made of aluninium, steel or carbon fiber composites; or even if one plane could only perform a couple of sorties before decomissioning.. the fact is the USAF (or DoD) decided it's good enough to keep them in service becuse of their capabilities in general.. if it can last 1 million flight hours - Bonus!!! if it can't rebuild or build new.....

I wonder why B2 cannot fly without FBW yet the B49 which shared a similar design seemed to fly well enough without FBW (i assume it didn't have and if it did then very primitive)... I guess B49 had atleast some vertical control surface whereas the B2 doesn't, but then Again I don't know enough about either aircraft to even begin to guess...


----------



## ray gower (Feb 19, 2005)

Both the B35 and B49 were essentially aerodynamically stable flying machines, as such they could be controlled by the pilots on their own. Set them on course and nothing will shake them. Only problem areas were taking off and landing, where they were susceptable to cross winds. But five minutes work either end of 40 hours isn't too bad?

The B2, in common with many Fly By Wire military aircraft, has the aerodynamic stability of a breezeblock i.e. without the computer flapping all the control surfaces and engines- they will crash.

The real question is why fit Fly By Wire to civillian aircraft, which must be designed to be stable (for safety reasons) in the first place. Pilots are over paid guerillas, but I would rather place my faith in their flying experience than Microsoft Windows when things go pear shaped.


----------



## khatab (Feb 25, 2005)

I fully understand why the B2 has FBW as I understand that the control surfaces cannot be manipulated by a human fast enough to fly the aircraft.. As the first fighter to have inherent instability engineered into its design, the F16 had a slight upward bias in its instability and the same can be said about a whole host of fighters today... (so this is not new to me  )

Anyway, I was aware of the whole terrible aerodynamics issue, what I was wondering was essentially how the Flying wing managed to fly with out FBW, I guess thatâ€™s the point I was getting at. Giving its configurational resemblance to the B2 you would think that it would be pig to fly.....


As for Airliners being FBW, correct me if I'm wrong but the Airbus 320 was the worlds first FBW airliner, I don't think it's fair to say that FBW will definitly change the workload significantly from what it already is on sophisticated Boeings for example (747-400 flies NY to Sydney non-stop, itâ€™s not FBW however the Pilots do not sit for 14 hours or so with their hands on the stick/column)

Autopilots do majority of the flying these days regardless of FBW or not.. ( as I said most current autopilot liners are not FBW), most pilots these days describe themselves as Flight Managers, and that the aircraft flies it self and they monitor its systems...

They (pilots said this in interviews Iâ€™ve watched) say that if the conditions are good, they tend to do manual landings for practice, and when visibility and conditions are poor they leave it to the autopilot.. I'm not making this up, I just happen to watch a lot of the Discovery Wings channel and in particular a program called "The Flight" where they board different commercial aircraft and film the journey from start to finish.. Edited of course to fit into 30mins.. 

But what I said tends to be the trend I have observed..
This has been going on for years and pilots have not been flying their aircraft for over a decade now... The advent of the FBW airliner doesn't change the fact that autopilot has done and will continue to carry out the bulk of long haul flying in civilian aviation..

I guess FBW stops pilots from getting into trouble but cutting the link between pilot and control surfaces if he's pulling unsafe manoeuvres, I guess hydraulic systems can only warn and not override pilot inputs in most cases..


And lets remember that the NTSB has found that majority of Airliner crashes are due to pilot error, not systems or mechanical failure so maybe computers are better at flying than we are 
  just a thought!!


----------



## ray gower (Feb 25, 2005)

No qualms about auto-pilots, even the clever ones like Concordes that could land the aircraft, or prevent the driver doing something the aircraft cannot do. They are a great benefit to air safety. 

But all of these are aides to the driver, they do not attempt to come between him and what needs to be done. They can be turned off when things go wrong, even a 747 can be flown if all the power assistance backups fail. Admitedly the pilot needs muscles like a gorrilla, but it can be done.

Fly By Wire necessarily involves giving ultimate and total control to the computer and this I do not like for a number of reasons:-

Computers are not reliable enough. Imagine you are about to land at Heathrow and the computer comes up blue screen of death? It happens even to ultra-reliable systems not just Windows. A320 Paris?
I am wary of 'glass cockpits' without manual repeaters for the same reason and certainly do not know a fairy (avionics tech) who trusts them.

They are reliant upon the rules as supplied by a programmer. They cannot react to something they do not have a rule for. Nor can they accomodate the small variations always present in mechanical equipment. 
You may remember an Airbus that took off with less than half the fuel it needed to cross the pond. The pilot managed to land the aircraft 'dead stick' after gliding it some 70 miles. All the rules say it was impossible and it has never successfully recreated in a simulator (Back to the amazing feats possible when panicking ). But without knowing how the pilots achieved the feat, no rule can be written for the computer, so it continues to take the logical step e.g. crash, and there is SFA the driver can do.

Finally, because people think Fly By Wire is so easy that any monkey with an hour on a PC flight sim can do it, the standards for pilots has started to decline. Which paradoxically will make flying less safe.


----------



## khatab (Feb 25, 2005)

The Airbus crash at Paris 88 was not due to computer systems error if I remember the investigation program I watched about the event.

Urban legend has it that as they were doing a low altitude pass with gear down the on board comp wrongly interpreted this as "we are trying to land" and when the pilot increased power the flight comp overrode the command... and the rest is history..

Not So. Actually forgive me if I can't remember the specifics but it was a while ago I watched this.
Essentially the pilots ignored the low altitude warning (understandably so) and for what ever reason made the pass much lower than was intended.
They then attempted to increase power to bank and climb and the engines took a while to spool up, unfortunately because of the pilots miscalculations they... well the cut down about 500 trees I guess and most people were lucky to get out alive.



As for computers not being reliable. I agree but nothing is 100 percent reliable and thatâ€™s why all FBW aircraft have multiple redundancy systems.

Ok so how many FBW "3rd gen" fighters have crashed due to systems failure? Not many (if any) and all i can remember is due to engine failure.
Yet we know for a fact that civilian aircraft certification is more stringent than military. I personally would feel no less safe in a 320 vs a 737. In fact I'd feel safe in the Airbus to be honest.

It is impressive that some pilot managed to glide 70 miles, but then again the problem here is how they managed to take off with half tanks.. and more to the point, at the point of rotation and the following climb I'm pretty sure that half tanks vs full tanks makes a significant difference when it comes to handling characteristics..

Pilots conversation:

"Whoa, Mike!! Watch that take off.. Jesus!! that's weird! Man did they install Nitrous on this thing?"  

"Ha, ha, Yeah, or rocket fuel, but seriously Jim, why did we take of like we weigh nothing? and look at our rate of ascent. We shouldn't be flying like this"

Well enough of the role play, but I would hope that in any other aircraft alarm bells would be ringing by now..

And if its a 2 engined Airbus then CAA regs mean they have to fly with a certain (sorry can't be specific again, but I think its 2hrs) number flying hours of land.... 

As for flying being less safe as it' become "easier to fly" well then it became dangerous 20 years ago..

As I mentioned it has always been auto pilot, and I guess its just as easy to flirt with the air hostesses, tell poor aviation jokes and drink coffee now as it was 20 years ago.. All that has changed is that now the auto pilot doesn't take 3 hours, a slide rule, alan keys, micrometers, monkey wrench and WD40 to program..
It figures that pilots make less mistakes when they have a lower work load.


----------



## ray gower (Feb 26, 2005)

With regard the dead stick Airbus. 
It was the first time the crew in question had flown that mark of aircraft (no training) and the aircraft itself was almost brand new. They did not know its performance characteristics and nor did the ground crew, which is why they loused up the calculations converting pounds into kilogrammes (blame Napoleon). 
Nor would two hours fuel in its belly have helped trying to fly to Europe from Canada.

Civillian certification standards are not as high as military ones, not by a long way. Certainly there are many civillian airliners in daily service that I would have grounded if they were on my flight line, but then I would not have let them get in that state to start with!
What you have to remember is that a military jet is highly stressed. The technology behind them is often cutting edge and it is used to its fullest at all times. Consequently they are just that much nearer breaking. So while an engine on a Jumbo only needs overhaul after 5000 hours flying, a Tornado's must be overhauled every 200 hours.


----------



## khatab (Feb 26, 2005)

Well what you say makes sense about the dead stick airbus. If they had never flow it then hey wouldnâ€™t know how it handles with under different configurations.

With regards to aircraft certification I appreciate that Military aircraft undergo higher stresses in their opps and therefore require more maintenance. However I was making my comments from a program (Disc. Wings again  ) where they were doing all the minimum unstick speed tests, aborted take off  etc.. And they had a 777 on a rig with its wings being tested to failure. 8meters deflection!! they managed and the wings failed within 20 milliseconds o each other. Howâ€™s that for consistency. Makes me laugh to think of passengers at the window seat panicking because the wing is flapping a bit, or because it disappears under a blanket of condensation on landing/takeoff..  :laugh2: 
p.s. an Aerospace engineer friend of mine went to a presentation at Airbus(Filton) and they managed to get 10meters deflection out of their wing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and yes I appreciate that military aircraft can withstand higher G's etc... I just found the sight spectacular)

Anyway I kind off got side tracked there, the point is that they mentioned that the safety certification is more stringent than in the military. So thatâ€™s one for you and the program producers to debate as unfortunately my knowledge comes from Aviation being a massive interest to me, not a career.
I am talking of passenger liners though not Piper Tomahawks or Aztecs.. I've been up in quite a few light aircraft and although I thoroughly enjoyed every second of it I did wonder if I was going to came back down to earth smoothly on the centre line of a runway or spinning out of the sky!!

I did go up once with an instructor who looked like he was minutes away from a heart attack, so I prayed that all the lessons I had had would at least allow me to get a non-fatal crash-landing in the case of what seemed like almost the inevitable...

I remember you saying that you didn't have faith in MFD and CRT cockpits with out manual repeaters, well don't fly in the 777, here's its cockpit


http://www.airliners.net/open.file?...o_nr=197&prev_id=526311&next_id=753463&size=L


It's probably the longest link you've ever seen but it works...wink2:


----------



## ray gower (Mar 6, 2005)

And the glass house still has a mechanical ASI/Altimeter, just in case 

The book of rules for achieving basic safety with aeroplanes is long, conservative and not strayed from by civilian makers. Which usually means that the loss of an odd engine is not automatically going to see the aircraft fall from the sky.
To make up for the use of commercial (cheap) parts on big aeroplanes, they double or even triple up on anything that is likely to break as it is still cheaper than buying Mil Spec equipment, where because there is no room for things to break, the standard has to be higher. 

When the RAF acquired their Timmy's (Tristars) they spent their first four months of squadron service in Abingdon being stripped, measured and tested. Out of 12 aircraft only 3 entered service without major repairs, yet they all carried recent CAA air-worthiness certificates.

None of this means there is a problem with Civillian standards. They are there to ensure that the aircraft is safe enough to carry X hundred passengers with a high degree of probability they will get where ever they are going.
The Air Force is not required to work to those rules and if the bullets fly they couldn't. A bullet hole in a wing will ground a Jumbo on suspicion, while a service chief would suck his chinagraph for inspiration, before marking the size of a patch. But the standards worked to are higher.


----------

