Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Layout

I have a new wider monitor - hope I haven't spoiled the layout of the article on narrower screens! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BIAS

This article seems to have signs of bias at different locations. I will use what i know for sure from my knowledge, and would like the point of view of experts. If agreed, some modifications may need to be done to the main article.

1)

"Perhaps its greatest advantage over the Camel was its superior performance at altitude – so that (unlike most Allied fighters) it was not outclassed by the Fokker D.VII when that fighter arrived at the front."

This quotation is total nonsense. "(unlike most Allied fighters)" For the one who wrote this article: By the time the SE5a entered service, "most" of allied were being equiped with the high speed/altitude/performance SPAD that appeared since september 1916!! Months before the SE5. SPADs equiped in huge quantity the french (in numbers the french was the most important allied actor of WW1) who systematically replaced their Nieuport by SPADs (British still used nieuport until 1917/1918 though)but then with the Spas13 appearing in June 1917, it was given to equip american (The third allied actor of WW1), italians and other minor countries.

So "most" of the allies had the superior performance SPAD which were at least as fast as the SE5.

The Fokker DVII still outclassed them (both SE5 and SPADs) not because of speed, which was inferior to most allied aircraft, but because of a combination of extreme durability (semi-monocoque metal fuselage) extreme manoeuverability and easyness to fly, great speed and rate of climb, 2 synchronised machineguns (that only the SPAD13 had contrary to both SPAD7 and SE5).

Because of all this, the fokker D7 was the best "all around" fighter of that period, maybe even WW1.

So the speed and height argument to justify that the SE5 was not outclassed by Fokker D7 is doubly wrong.

However if we change the "unlike most Allied fighters" to "unlike most British fighters", then it takes a lot of sense since in that era, most british aircraft were (inferior speed) rotary engines (Sopwith and Nieuport for the most)

But saying the SE5 wasn't outclassed by the Fokker DVII is still wrong, and i'm pretty sure that most WW1 specialists do agree with me on that point.

2)

" Albert Ball was initially disparaging of the S.E.5 but in the end claimed 17 of his 44 victories flying it"

This is partly wrong, partly playing on words. The number is wrong (see below). Even though Ball DID fly in the SE5 and got victories, he still continued to prefer the Nieuport and actually, one of his very last kills was made on Nieuport which he was still flying until he died.

Also, the 17 number is wrong, by http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/england/ball.php his detailed killings show a maximum of 11 aircraft killed with the SE5. Plus, if BALL had really the 17 kills claimed, this would basically mean that the SE5 appeared in service in 1916 (when the protoype hadn't even been flown one single time!)

I think Albert BALL should be withdrawn from the article praising SE5 virtues, as he is exactly the wrong example for that, he who said once

"The S.E.5 has turned out a dud... It's a great shame, for everybody expects such a lot from them... it is a rotten machine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some good ideas there - and thanks for correcting the numbers (but can you cite these changes?). The comment about the SE not being "outclassed" by the D VII certainly doesn't mean that either fighter was superior to the other in every respect of course. Actually neither of these "stationary" engined fighters was especially manoverable (certainly not endowed with "extreme" manoeverability) when compared with (say) the Camel or the Snipe, or for that matter the Fokker Dr 1 or the SSW D.IV (not to mention the Nieuport!). Both the SE and the D VII were famous for their "kindness" to inexperienced pilots - somebody said of the D VII that it made a poor pilot into a good pilot, and a good pilot into an ace (or words to that effect). The SE had a similar reputation (of combining stability with "quite good" manoeverability). The "outclassed" allied fighters would include the Sopwith Camel and the Nieuport 28 (and anything older, of course) apart from the SE, the Dolphin and the S XIII. As for whether the SE or the D VII was the better fighter - the SE was much faster and the Fokker was a good deal more manoeverable (although the difference was rather less than "extreme"). As for the armament - it would have been quite easy to have removed the upper-wing Lewis on the SE and replace it with an extra syncronised gun - it wasn't done because there were actually a good many advantages to having a weapon that could be fired at an angle, especially when it "harmonised" reasonably with the other gun when fired straight forward. So far as "durability" was concerned - what exactly are we talking about here? The D VII was a typical Fokker structure, with a fabric and ply covered welded steel frame fuselage and a wooden cantilever wing. We don't hear any stories of weakness or deterioration in the structure (as we do for several other German fighters, including the Albatros and the Triplane) - but really the first D VIIs built were still almost new when the war ended, even allowing for the short life of a 1918 aeroplane. Where does the "extreme" durability come from? The SE's all-wooden airframe had a good reputation for strength, after some initial problems with the prototypes. I actually can't recall any firm equivalent information about the D VII - although perhaps we can assume that if there had been any real problems they would be mentioned in the records.

Albert Ball took the first prototype for a flight at Farnborough - and, as you state, was not favourably impressed (to be kind). He didn't like the high seating or the poor lateral control at low speed (both of which were changed in production models) and missed his favorite Nieuport's sensitivity. Also, like many people before and since, he was liable to be suspicious of anything good coming out of the Royal Aircraft Factory. This is already mentioned in the article (that's what "disparaging" means!).

On the whole, making too much of either of these points (comparision with the D VII and the opinion of Albert Ball) in THIS article (they have their own articles.) is not really a good thing to do. The fact is that the SE, in spite of coming out a full year before the D VII, compared quite well with its German counterpart - although each was better than the other in some respects. Albert Ball was initially VERY disparaging of the SE - but later came to quite like it (albeit he always preferred his Nieuport). That's all the article says really - and I don't think inaccurately in either case.

Having said ALL THAT (!) - I am going to reexamine the lead and see if we can improve it - I'm by no means sure that it doesn't echo a source a little too closely than we would like. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the answer, i wasn't expecting an answer that fast.

To answer some of the points you have raised:

"Where does the "extreme" durability come from? The SE's all-wooden airframe had a good reputation for strength, after some initial problems with the prototypes."

It looks like you are not aware that the D7 was in high percentage made of steel.

Although i have read it uncountable number of times, including in encyclopedias, here is the fastest source i found on internet:

"The fuselage was constructed of wire-braced welded steel tubing with a three-ply top decking behind the cockpit; the whole being fabric-covered, except for the engine cowlings. Fin, balanced rudder, tailplane and balanced elevators were also of fabric-covered steel tube. Two struts braced the tailplane from below. The undercarriage was of streamlined steel tube and its axle was enclosed in a large fairing which gave some extra lift. "

http://www.aviation-history.com/fokker/d7.html

Not only the steel was superior to the all-wooden structures of the era, BUT also in the way the aircraft was assembled the structure was made more resistant. Contrary to other aircraft, the D7 was assembled in different combined "blocks" that were solidary the one from the other, which strenghtened the strucutre. This is referred in both my Italian and French encyclopedias as "Semi-monocoque structure" which was being used for Albatros already, although with wood instead of steel.

"As for the armament - it would have been quite easy to have removed the upper-wing Lewis on the SE and replace it with an extra syncronised gun - it wasn't done because there were actually a good many advantages to having a weapon that could be fired at an angle, especially when it "harmonised" reasonably with the other gun when fired straight forward."

The angled lewis could be a virtue to attack the bombers from unexpected angle, however this doesn't change the fact that the firepower of the aircraft was drastically reduced as both machineguns could not be fired at the same time.

As relates the reports of James Mccudden and some other British pilots, they either fired the vickers, or the Lewis. Because one hand was need for each. Firing both at the same time would make the "unpiloted fly" quite not adapted to aim and shoot accurately.

You may understand why firing one machinegun only is greatly reduced firepower compared to two synchrnized machineguns.

Not only that, but the Lewis gun only fired with drums of ammunition, biggest drums had 97 shots, but the most common had about 50 shots. After 50 shots begin fired, the bulky Lewis needed to be reloaded WHILE IN FLIGHT thanks to the foster mounting.

Thats why most sources consider 2 synchronised machineguns as superior firepower. As a fact i think that after the SE5, even the british army would drop the use of this kind of armament, at least i dont know any aircraft post-SE5 using it.

If that wasn't enough, most of the serious sources including reenactors flying old machines like Franck TALLMAN consider the Fokker DVII as being a step forward any other aircraft of the era,in matters as well as modernity AND flying performance, even though it was slightly slower than the SE5a and SPADs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All Fokkers of this period - going back to the Eindecker, and on well into the twenties and early thirties - had fuselages with a basic welded steel tube structure - combined with wooden wings. The Fokker factory (at least in the period 1914-1918) was notorious for poor workmanship - although the D VII seems to have been better built than (say) the D III or the Dr.1. Much more important than the actual material used is of course the level of structural engineering. A steel structure is by no means automatically stronger than a wooden one. Incidentally the D VII's fuselage WASN'T monocoque (or even semi) at all - the fabric and thin ply covering contributed no strenth or rigidity - all this came from the steel tube framework. If you have a book that says otherwise the author doesn't know what "monocoque" means. (Look it up.)

Without arguing about the virtues of twin syncronised guns and the "Lewis + Vickers" arrangement, let's get our facts straight. On the SE the Lewis and the Vickers WERE normally fired forward together, unless the Lewis was being fired upwards or at an angle, when it did need to be fired separately (and by directly pulling the trigger - normally of course both guns were triggered togther, by bowden cables, from a button (actually, looking at some photos, it seems to have been a little handle, like a bike's handbrake)on the joystick). The two guns fired the same ammumition at about the same rate of fire so firepower was roughly the same. A 1918 vintage synchronised Vickers very seldom fired 90 rounds without jamming - a free firing Lewis DID need its drum changed every 97 rounds but was much more reliable in this respect. Failure of the synchronising gear, which was still frequent, only cut one gun instead of both. Harmonisation between the two guns was inferior - if only because the Lewis vibrated more, producing a wider spread of bullets (for most pilots this was more of an advantage than a hinderance - although for the real marksman it was another matter of course). The official specification to which later British fighters (such as the Snipe) were designed included provision of a Lewis firing upward - although in practice in most cases it proved impossible to design a manageable mounting, and this part of the specification was quietly dropped. The Dolphin actually had two Lewis guns - although these COULDN'T be fired fowards in harmonisation with the Vickers - there was no structure to lift them over the arc of the prop to do so.

No one is denying that the D VII was technically a ground breaking aircraft - in fact some of its basic features were carried through to post-war Fokkers. In fact it DOES have its very own Wikipedia article! I think what the original editor was trying to make clear in the passage you objected to was that the SE coped better with the D VII than some types, such as the Camel. To rephrase that from the German point of view - the D VII walked all over the Camel - but the SE remained a difficult opponent. In fact I actually edited this passage to make this a little more clear - and also because the actual words before we edited them semed to be a direct lift from a standard source.

Always good to exchange views with a fellow WWI aircraft buff! And have fun editing Wikipedia we don't have nearly enough well read, "good faith" editors in this field. Even when we "argue", as here, the article is, I think, the better for it - which is all that matters. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I will quote my sources though, for further "food to think".

From World Encyclopedia of military Aircraft by enzo angelucci : (google translation)

"The fokker DVII was probably the best in the absolute. In operation since April 1918, it proved superior to the SPAD, Sopwith Camel and SE5, and its outstanding value as a war machine was demonstrated at the time of the armistice: A clause expressly stated in the Fokker DVII material that the vanquished were to provide Allied .[...]

Besides the speed, strength and agility, qualities that were appreciated by pilots were especially exceptional ascentional speed and outstanding performance ascentionnel altitude. This performance was further improved with version F. [...] to arrive at 5000 m it was 14 minutes in DVII F" (22 minuts for the SE5a)

You may note in addition to all the other D7 qualities that have been said before, that the SE5 was actually faster only in dive or straight flight. So the speed argument is not even 100% true.

From History of aviation by Editions ATLAS and Aerospace publishing LTD:

"Undeniably, this was the best fighter of the war and the ultimate production of Reinhold Platz .[...] The characteristic creations Platz was the simplicity and robustness fuselage of steel tubes strengthened reinforced metal panels, large wing rib shaped dividing wing casings capable of withstanding bending and tension [...] BMW engine fitted, it climbed in altitude the aircraft or allies were losing momentum and stall."

Note that both sources are Italian and French, and as such cannot be accused of partiality towards german stuff.

For the vickers jamming, thats true, however most aircraft had a direct acces to the cocking handle, and a simple recocking of the gun would solve the problem as far as i know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

All WW1 fighter pilots carried a hammer (!) to assist in clearing jams - some COULD be cleared in flight, but it usually required a lot more than just recocking, and quite often had to wait until after landing. Platz remained Fokker's (largely unacknowleged) chief designer for long after the war - so the D VII was hardly his "ultimate" production (or perhaps we are losing some meaning in translation?) And for the third time, no one is saying the D VII was not a fine fighter for its time, and a very difficult opponent for any contemporary allied aircraft. So what is the point of the last rash of remarks?

In any case, has any of this much to do with the subject of the article? Edit the Fokker D.VII article if you think it is biased, or, in fact, if you can improve that article in any way from your Italian and French sources. Is there any part of this article (as now edited) which you think is unfair to the Fokker? (given it is barely mentioned). Remember the purpose of all this discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ther original contentious was about the word "outclassed". Now it has been edited by you, fine, but as i said before i added my source for a matter of transparence, objectivity and source quoting. I'm not asking any debate. You are no forced to answer. I prefer giving my source for people not thinking my point of view was arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries - the only reason I replied to your last couple of posts was to correct factual errors (which I'm sure were not due to your sources) and certainly not to debate such nebulous matters as to whether fighter A was better than fighter B. As always, such questions depend on far too many variables (and in any case are not the sort of thing you put into an encyclopedia). Once again - welcome to Wikipedia - but remember we all have a lot to learn! And sign your posts by typing in four tilde signs (this is one ~) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A Vickers gun never jammed as it was too well designed for that. What the original authors almost certainly meant were stoppages usually caused by the ammunition, i.e., a mis-firing cartridge. Simply re-cocking the gun would clear any stoppage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Contadiction in numbers

In the info box, it says 5,205 were built, in the text it says 5,265 were built. Which is correct? 157.127.155.214 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Production figures appear to differ. J M Bruce in British Aeroplanes 1914–18 (1957) gives 5205 SE5 and 5as, Paul R Hare in The Royal Airraft Factory (1990) gives "50 or so" SE5s with 5205 SE5as by the armistice and 5269 in total, and Francis K Mason in The British Fighter since 1912 (1992 gives 3 prototypes, 48 SE5s and 5180 SE5a built in Britain, with one built by Curtiss + another 57 SE5Es assembled from spares.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Expecting "published" numbers relating to older aircraft (even dimensions - but much more performance and production figures) to be precise and consistent is VERY fraught - as Nigel says it depends entirely where you get the figures from. Some sources include licence production, some include prototypes, some do neither. And some are simply wrong. In a few cases it is actually extremely doubtful exactly how many were built, wherever you go. I have seen a "source" (not, incidentally one I would class as a very reliable one)that makes a somewhat monotonous point of remarking every every time a production figure is listed that it is "possibly only approximate". Just the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. None the less - it doesn't hurt to harmonise info box with text. I suspect someone "corrected one and forgot the other. Better, provided the difference is fairly small, to bear the above in mind and leave well alone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hisso" nickname

With all respect, the web page article used as a reference here is specifically about the Wright version (only very brief background information on other versions - much of it erronious - e.g. French and British versions not used in the war?!?). Very possibly it was called a "hisso" in America - but no evidence whatsoever it was called that in the RFC in 1917-1918. Even if it was - I am not sure a colloquial nickname like this belongs here anyway, especially in an article that is NOT about the engine, but a specific type powered by that engine. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sandwich" pictures

I agree that it is generally a bad idea to place illustrations opposite each other, producing a narrow column of text between them. On the other hand there are cases when this actually works well - as it does here. We are talking about the difference between the "semi-enclosed" cockpit of the initial production S.E.5 and its fully "open-cockpit" version - we really need the pictures opposite each other to make the point clearly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Vocabulary

<quote> Useful in both offence and defence. </quote> I am not a native speaker of English, but surely this should read "offense" and "defense" or even "in attack" vs. "in defense" or such? Jan olieslagers (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"offence" and "defence" are the British English spellings. There's guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Offence could conceivably be changed for attack but its not necessary.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case it looks as if this is what Sholto Douglas said - i.e. it is a direct quote. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Canada flag

One thing I noticed (though it's not a huge issue) is that in the section with the countries, Canada has the flag of Ontario beside it, rather than the canadian flag. Therustyspork9 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a Canadian flag the Ontario one is slightly different . MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Altitude performance

Apparently a "getting on" Cecil Lewis claimed the S.E.5 was limited to 16,000 ft. (a younger Lewis specifically describes a much higher flight) - this really gels badly with contemporary sources, and the records of (e.g.) McCudden. Will return to this one later - and I'm not disputing the evidence itself - just its relevance in context to an encyclopedia article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Soundofmusicals for heading promptly for the talk page. I've added the link to Lewis's page & if necessary, I'll add a caveat. I was aware of the SE5 ceiling being quoted as 17,000 feet and the apparent contradiction with Lewis's statement that he couldn't engage enemy aircraft above 16,000 feet. I suspect both are correct and that Lewis and co would definitely not want to fight the aircraft at the limit of its flight envelope and would therefore stay at 16,000. It doesn't apply in the missile age but I believe WW2 pilots would have felt similarly restricted. Although the military of both sides would have been fully aware of the reality, McCudden would have been unwilling to damage morale at home by criticising the plane during the war as would a younger Lewis. Also the official secrets act 1911 applied. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We really can't begin to speculate as to why Lewis made such a statement but in any case not every remark made in an interview by an old man recalling his youth is accurate (I can say things like that, being older than Lewis was then myself!!) Several aces who flew the S.E. (most notably McCudden) actually specialised in the interception of very high flying German photo reconnaissance aircraft, which typically flew well over 17,000. In 1917/18 the performance envelope of the typical warplane was definitely pushed to the limit pretty continuously. As for "official secrets" and not criticising their equipment - airmen of this period were very often very critical indeed of the aircraft they flew, (politicians and journalists were sometimes even worse). Albert Ball even made some very disparaging remarks about the S.E. (before he'd flown it in combat). The "literature" of First World War aviation is in particular filled with criticism, by no means all of it entirely fair, of the products of the Royal Aircraft Factory. If the S.E.5 had been inferior to its contemporaries in any important aspect, we would have heard all about it at the time, believe me! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again SoM. Firstly I accept you've read more books than I have. I'm trying to resolve differences between Lewis & other sources and hope after discussion we get a better article. I note that Wikipedia says the SE5 has a lower ceiling than the Fokker D.VII, precisely Lewis's point. It is also lower than the Camel's and the Albatros D.III. The sentence below therefore seems wrong. Any comments?

Perhaps its greatest advantage over the Camel was its superior performance at altitude, making it a much better match for the Fokker D.VII when that fighter arrived at the front.

I am wondering whether given the tendency of early aircraft to break up, test pilots didn't check the envelope over enthusiastically. Thoughts eagerly awaited! JRPG (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm a bit curt at this stage, but I've just downloaded Windows 10 (silly old fool) and am a bit preoccupied trying to get it running just as I want it to. My short answer here is that Cecil Lewis's famous book Sagittarius Rising is itself a very good (near) contemporary source - I don't consider that there is (for our purposes here) any need to "reconcile" it with a much later interview. Quite apart from everything else, any such reconciliation would necessarily involve us "interpreting" either the book, the interview, or both, in way that would violate WP:OR. To directly address your other points - performance figures from this period (especially "service ceiling") are notoriously variable - the Wiki way is to take the numbers from a reliable source and make no attempt to reconcile these with anything else (WP:OR again). In practice we have to bear in mind that they are not necessarily cut and dried and comparable. And yes aircraft "broke up" regularly - mostly by being dived too fast, but also by what we'd regard as reckless "pushing of the envelope". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

At the time the aircraft's ceiling would have been limited by the pilot's individual physiognomy, i.e., the time he could withstand without a supplemental oxygen supply, the normal altitude above-which one requires additional oxygen being reckoned to be around 8-10,000 feet. Generally a younger, fitter, pilot will be able to cope without additional oxygen for longer, and thus fly higher, than someone less fit, or older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

T.E.1

@NiD.29 - Fancy the old fool (me) not reading his Hare a little more closely! Somewhere in the mess from moving my study to the garage I seem to have lost my copy of the Hare book specifically on the S.E.5 which may be a little clearer(?) Either way I shouldn't have been so quick to revert! On the other hand I wonder just what the relationship between the S.E and the RAF two seater design was - did they share any actual components? Was the resemblance just that they had very similar engine installations (like the B.E.12b for instance?). Since Hare actually states "based on a scaled-up S.E.5" the note scrapes in, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Cecil Lewis

An obviously well-meant edit has been reverted here - this is why, point by point.

• 1. It is in the wrong section. Where ever this belongs it is not in the Operational History section. Ideally it would go with other assessments by pilots who flew the type. We would at best need to move it to a more appropriate place.

• 2. The edit breaks between two sentences of original text that destroy the continuity - we are in the middle of remarking that the first operational pilots found the type rather underpowered - and in the next sentence we go on to remark that the availability of the 200hp. Hispano provided the required additional power.

• 3. The statement like "In his memoir Sagittarius Rising, Cecil Arthur Lewis recalled that the S.E.5 was less fast and climbed slower than the latest German types" really needs to be cited. Obviously we need to know the page number (or in a classic like this that exists in several editions, perhaps the chapter it is in). The quoted statement has no bearing, and does not even mention German types.

• 4. It is indisputable that the S.E. was "not as agile as some other Allied machines" - in fact we have already mentioned this at least once already. The anecdote about Lewis and his mock dogfight with a Dolphin is however very much out of context - and doesn't really support the statement. in fact Lewis goes on to describe getting out of his plane to meet the pilot with whom he has been jousting - to meet his old advanced training instructor - the punch line is "Hello Lewis, still learning to fly?". Not exactly a very good example (although by all accounts the Dolphin, with its lighter wing loading WAS a little more manoevrable than the S.E.). All that it really shown is that a Dolphin (given a better pilot) could outfly an S.E. Well, so what?

• 5. If you're going to add a citation then it must be in an improved format - preferabaly the same format as the other references in the article. This one does not even have a page number - although in citing a classic like this, that exists in several editions with different paginations, a chapter number may be even more helpful.

Not to say that the anecdote wouldn't make an interesting addition somewhere or other - but not where it was put, not without its punchline, that gives the whole point of the anecdote - and not quoted in support of statements with which it is either tenuously connected or not relevant to at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk)