Ttdfjt

Prime sieve in Python

Will generated tokens be progressively stronger when using Cathar's Crusade and Sorin, Grim Nemesis?

How large would a mega structure have to be to host 1 billion people indefinitely?

Confusion over 220 and 230 volt outlets

Do I need a shock-proof watch for cycling?

UK - Working without a contract. I resign and guy wants to sue me

Is "Busen" just the area between the breasts?

Why isn't my calculation that we should be able to see the sun well beyond the observable universe valid?

What is the highest voltage from the power supply a Raspberry Pi 3 B can handle without getting damaged?

What determines the direction in which motor proteins go?

Encounter design and XP thresholds

DBCC checkdb on tempdb

Why do all the teams that I have worked with always finish a sprint without completion of all the stories?

Story about hunting giant lizards for hides on privately owned planet

Why don't countries like Japan just print more money?

Dates on degrees don’t make sense – will people care?

Should an enameled cast iron pan be seasoned?

Does the monk's Step of the Wind feature activate the benefit of the Mobile feat?

Do I have any obligations to my PhD supervisor's requests after I have graduated?

Intuition for the role of diffeomorphisms

Where's this swanky house and vineyard near a mountain?

How to remove this component from PCB

Should I include an appendix for inessential, yet related worldbuilding to my story?

What are Elsa's reasons for selecting the Holy Grail on behalf of Donovan?

The Mig 21 and the Mirage III have been criticized for lack of range, is this a limitation of the wing configuration?

How does a 'Highly Swept leading-edge' delta wing reduces fuel burn and increases range?What is the one-engine-inoperative maximum range flight configuration?Why do the MiG-15 and MiG-17 have a split air intake in their noses?What wing spacing is best for a tandem wing configuration?How to calculate the airspeed for maximum specific range?What are the differences between the MiG 31 and MiG 25 (if any)?Why is the ratio maximum range speed/maximum endurance speed the same for any airplane?Why was the boat mounted this way on the underside of the wing on the “Landseaire” flying yacht?How can I find the optimum chord wing length for this wing?What are the typical max range and max flight time (endurance) Mach numbers for the A320?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

5

$begingroup$

Mig 21
Range: 1,470 km (910 mi; 790 nmi) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) with 2 × K-13A missiles and 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal)
(Wikipeda)

J-7
Combat radius: 850 km (459 nmi, 528 mi) (air superiority, two AAMs and three drop tanks)

JF-17
Combat radius 1 350 km

The J-7 and JF-17 are developments of the Mig 21, why is their range greater?

aircraft-design aerodynamics aircraft-performance fighter

share|improve this question

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

Mig 21
Range: 1,470 km (910 mi; 790 nmi) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) with 2 × K-13A missiles and 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal)
(Wikipeda)

J-7
Combat radius: 850 km (459 nmi, 528 mi) (air superiority, two AAMs and three drop tanks)

JF-17
Combat radius 1 350 km

The J-7 and JF-17 are developments of the Mig 21, why is their range greater?

aircraft-design aerodynamics aircraft-performance fighter

share|improve this question

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Mig 21
Range: 1,470 km (910 mi; 790 nmi) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) with 2 × K-13A missiles and 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal)
(Wikipeda)

J-7
Combat radius: 850 km (459 nmi, 528 mi) (air superiority, two AAMs and three drop tanks)

JF-17
Combat radius 1 350 km

The J-7 and JF-17 are developments of the Mig 21, why is their range greater?

aircraft-design aerodynamics aircraft-performance fighter

share|improve this question

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

share|improve this question

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

asked Jun 12 at 2:27

stackex555stackex555

336111

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

8

$begingroup$

No. Their range limitation stems from their original concept: relatively cheap simple lightweight agile fighter (MiG-21) or interceptor (Mirage III).

There are plenty of long(er)-range aircraft with delta wing (if that's what you mean). Concorde, for one. B-58. Eurofighter.

For a given class of aircraft, range is primarily a function of fuel quantity and therefore (almost directly) of the maximum takeoff weight. JF-17 is 35% heavier and so has significantly greater range. (It also helps that it and its engine are two generations newer). J-7 is practically the same as MiG-21 and has very similar performance.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Uh range is most certainly a function of wing configuration. - Since range is based on CL/CD, which of itself is a function of the aspect ratio of a wing. - So YES this is (again) a wrong answer. Other design parameters might've been more important and driving the wing design. But the configuration DOES influence range, to a very very large extend.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Everything depends on everything. But for a given class of aircraft, esp. of the same generation, CL/CD (and most other dimensionless characteristics) will be very similar. For these aircraft in particular, there are many overriding requirements that determine the wing shape, such as speed and manoeuvrability. Moreover, the combat radius for such aircraft is not necessarily determined at the best CL/CD: this would be too slow. The end result is that if you want greater range and/or payload, you'll inevitably need a larger aircraft. (Or a leap to the next generation, or often both).
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 13:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  As I said: other design parameters are considered more important (maneuverability/high maximum wing loading & velocity are prime examples). But range is a direct consequence of the glide ratio. - which is the lift to drag ration (CL/CD). -- Saying "aircraft don't change in CL/CD of the same generation" is a non statement: this is something that is just picked by the designers fairly early on. It can be chosen as one wishes. Picking the glide ratio is done way earlier in the design process than the engines or fuel; as such design range is already chosen at the start.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @paul23: No, this is not a wrong answer, however, your assertion that L/D is a function of the aspect ratio is at least flawed if not outright wrong. Given the requirement for supersonic performance, other non-delta aircraft with natural stability and the same size achieve very similar range performance, so the main proposition of this answer is correct.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:53
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @PeterKämpf Again the original question never assumed supersonic to be the case: of course if we make the the driving parameter a delta wing is probably best. - But that's again a choice. It might be a more important parameter (or driving one) than distance or glide performance - however that is still a conscious choice and not something that is an effect. - The point I wish to make is that the reason fightercraft have limited range is based on design choices, supersonic cruise speed is such a choice.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 14:00
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

According to your own data you provide, the MiG-21 has the longer range of the 3...

As to the J7 having shorter range, I'd not be surprised if the engine the Chinese use is less efficient than the Soviet one it was copied from (and it is indeed an almost carbon copy of an early model MiG-21), and the same'd be true for many other of the aircraft's systems (my guess would be for example that the MiG would have thinner metal and flush rivets, rather than thicker metal and round headed rivets on the more primitively built J7, making it lighter and more aerodynamically efficient).

The JF-17 is a more modern development of the J7 concept with improved materials, engines, aerodynamics, giving overall better performance.

Mirage III and MiG-21 were both designed for a very similar mission: short range rapid response interception of incoming enemy strikes (and especially bomber strikes) with air to air missiles only (guns being added pretty much as an afterthought, neither aircraft was designed with the agility needed for a dogfighter). They didn't need long range, the idea was to get up to altitude as quickly as possible, launch missiles at the approaching enemies, then get down again to refuel and rearm and do it all over again. Later variants were given increased range and agility to allow them more versatility, but that was the original concept behind both aircraft.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  MiG-21 wasn't such a pure interceptor as Mirage III and had guns from the beginning (and no radar). On some modifications in the early 60s the guns were removed, but all later modifications had them again.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 12:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Caution: Combat radius is not range. Normally, combat radius = range / 3. This makes the range of the J-7 and JF-17 a lot bigger.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Peter, certainly, except that the figures in the OP are not compatible: different configurations, different conditions, different versions. For what it's worth, MiG-21 and J-7 are practically the same.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 13 at 1:47
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65473%2fthe-mig-21-and-the-mirage-iii-have-been-criticized-for-lack-of-range-is-this-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

8

$begingroup$

No. Their range limitation stems from their original concept: relatively cheap simple lightweight agile fighter (MiG-21) or interceptor (Mirage III).

There are plenty of long(er)-range aircraft with delta wing (if that's what you mean). Concorde, for one. B-58. Eurofighter.

For a given class of aircraft, range is primarily a function of fuel quantity and therefore (almost directly) of the maximum takeoff weight. JF-17 is 35% heavier and so has significantly greater range. (It also helps that it and its engine are two generations newer). J-7 is practically the same as MiG-21 and has very similar performance.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Uh range is most certainly a function of wing configuration. - Since range is based on CL/CD, which of itself is a function of the aspect ratio of a wing. - So YES this is (again) a wrong answer. Other design parameters might've been more important and driving the wing design. But the configuration DOES influence range, to a very very large extend.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Everything depends on everything. But for a given class of aircraft, esp. of the same generation, CL/CD (and most other dimensionless characteristics) will be very similar. For these aircraft in particular, there are many overriding requirements that determine the wing shape, such as speed and manoeuvrability. Moreover, the combat radius for such aircraft is not necessarily determined at the best CL/CD: this would be too slow. The end result is that if you want greater range and/or payload, you'll inevitably need a larger aircraft. (Or a leap to the next generation, or often both).
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 13:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  As I said: other design parameters are considered more important (maneuverability/high maximum wing loading & velocity are prime examples). But range is a direct consequence of the glide ratio. - which is the lift to drag ration (CL/CD). -- Saying "aircraft don't change in CL/CD of the same generation" is a non statement: this is something that is just picked by the designers fairly early on. It can be chosen as one wishes. Picking the glide ratio is done way earlier in the design process than the engines or fuel; as such design range is already chosen at the start.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @paul23: No, this is not a wrong answer, however, your assertion that L/D is a function of the aspect ratio is at least flawed if not outright wrong. Given the requirement for supersonic performance, other non-delta aircraft with natural stability and the same size achieve very similar range performance, so the main proposition of this answer is correct.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:53
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @PeterKämpf Again the original question never assumed supersonic to be the case: of course if we make the the driving parameter a delta wing is probably best. - But that's again a choice. It might be a more important parameter (or driving one) than distance or glide performance - however that is still a conscious choice and not something that is an effect. - The point I wish to make is that the reason fightercraft have limited range is based on design choices, supersonic cruise speed is such a choice.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 14:00
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

$begingroup$

No. Their range limitation stems from their original concept: relatively cheap simple lightweight agile fighter (MiG-21) or interceptor (Mirage III).

There are plenty of long(er)-range aircraft with delta wing (if that's what you mean). Concorde, for one. B-58. Eurofighter.

For a given class of aircraft, range is primarily a function of fuel quantity and therefore (almost directly) of the maximum takeoff weight. JF-17 is 35% heavier and so has significantly greater range. (It also helps that it and its engine are two generations newer). J-7 is practically the same as MiG-21 and has very similar performance.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Uh range is most certainly a function of wing configuration. - Since range is based on CL/CD, which of itself is a function of the aspect ratio of a wing. - So YES this is (again) a wrong answer. Other design parameters might've been more important and driving the wing design. But the configuration DOES influence range, to a very very large extend.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Everything depends on everything. But for a given class of aircraft, esp. of the same generation, CL/CD (and most other dimensionless characteristics) will be very similar. For these aircraft in particular, there are many overriding requirements that determine the wing shape, such as speed and manoeuvrability. Moreover, the combat radius for such aircraft is not necessarily determined at the best CL/CD: this would be too slow. The end result is that if you want greater range and/or payload, you'll inevitably need a larger aircraft. (Or a leap to the next generation, or often both).
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 13:18
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  As I said: other design parameters are considered more important (maneuverability/high maximum wing loading & velocity are prime examples). But range is a direct consequence of the glide ratio. - which is the lift to drag ration (CL/CD). -- Saying "aircraft don't change in CL/CD of the same generation" is a non statement: this is something that is just picked by the designers fairly early on. It can be chosen as one wishes. Picking the glide ratio is done way earlier in the design process than the engines or fuel; as such design range is already chosen at the start.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 13:24
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @paul23: No, this is not a wrong answer, however, your assertion that L/D is a function of the aspect ratio is at least flawed if not outright wrong. Given the requirement for supersonic performance, other non-delta aircraft with natural stability and the same size achieve very similar range performance, so the main proposition of this answer is correct.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:53
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @PeterKämpf Again the original question never assumed supersonic to be the case: of course if we make the the driving parameter a delta wing is probably best. - But that's again a choice. It might be a more important parameter (or driving one) than distance or glide performance - however that is still a conscious choice and not something that is an effect. - The point I wish to make is that the reason fightercraft have limited range is based on design choices, supersonic cruise speed is such a choice.
  $endgroup$
  – paul23
  Jun 12 at 14:00
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

No. Their range limitation stems from their original concept: relatively cheap simple lightweight agile fighter (MiG-21) or interceptor (Mirage III).

There are plenty of long(er)-range aircraft with delta wing (if that's what you mean). Concorde, for one. B-58. Eurofighter.

For a given class of aircraft, range is primarily a function of fuel quantity and therefore (almost directly) of the maximum takeoff weight. JF-17 is 35% heavier and so has significantly greater range. (It also helps that it and its engine are two generations newer). J-7 is practically the same as MiG-21 and has very similar performance.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

answered Jun 12 at 6:22

ZeusZeus

3,932816

1

$begingroup$

According to your own data you provide, the MiG-21 has the longer range of the 3...

As to the J7 having shorter range, I'd not be surprised if the engine the Chinese use is less efficient than the Soviet one it was copied from (and it is indeed an almost carbon copy of an early model MiG-21), and the same'd be true for many other of the aircraft's systems (my guess would be for example that the MiG would have thinner metal and flush rivets, rather than thicker metal and round headed rivets on the more primitively built J7, making it lighter and more aerodynamically efficient).

The JF-17 is a more modern development of the J7 concept with improved materials, engines, aerodynamics, giving overall better performance.

Mirage III and MiG-21 were both designed for a very similar mission: short range rapid response interception of incoming enemy strikes (and especially bomber strikes) with air to air missiles only (guns being added pretty much as an afterthought, neither aircraft was designed with the agility needed for a dogfighter). They didn't need long range, the idea was to get up to altitude as quickly as possible, launch missiles at the approaching enemies, then get down again to refuel and rearm and do it all over again. Later variants were given increased range and agility to allow them more versatility, but that was the original concept behind both aircraft.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  MiG-21 wasn't such a pure interceptor as Mirage III and had guns from the beginning (and no radar). On some modifications in the early 60s the guns were removed, but all later modifications had them again.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 12:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Caution: Combat radius is not range. Normally, combat radius = range / 3. This makes the range of the J-7 and JF-17 a lot bigger.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Peter, certainly, except that the figures in the OP are not compatible: different configurations, different conditions, different versions. For what it's worth, MiG-21 and J-7 are practically the same.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 13 at 1:47
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

According to your own data you provide, the MiG-21 has the longer range of the 3...

As to the J7 having shorter range, I'd not be surprised if the engine the Chinese use is less efficient than the Soviet one it was copied from (and it is indeed an almost carbon copy of an early model MiG-21), and the same'd be true for many other of the aircraft's systems (my guess would be for example that the MiG would have thinner metal and flush rivets, rather than thicker metal and round headed rivets on the more primitively built J7, making it lighter and more aerodynamically efficient).

The JF-17 is a more modern development of the J7 concept with improved materials, engines, aerodynamics, giving overall better performance.

Mirage III and MiG-21 were both designed for a very similar mission: short range rapid response interception of incoming enemy strikes (and especially bomber strikes) with air to air missiles only (guns being added pretty much as an afterthought, neither aircraft was designed with the agility needed for a dogfighter). They didn't need long range, the idea was to get up to altitude as quickly as possible, launch missiles at the approaching enemies, then get down again to refuel and rearm and do it all over again. Later variants were given increased range and agility to allow them more versatility, but that was the original concept behind both aircraft.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  MiG-21 wasn't such a pure interceptor as Mirage III and had guns from the beginning (and no radar). On some modifications in the early 60s the guns were removed, but all later modifications had them again.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 12 at 12:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Caution: Combat radius is not range. Normally, combat radius = range / 3. This makes the range of the J-7 and JF-17 a lot bigger.
  $endgroup$
  – Peter Kämpf
  Jun 12 at 13:56
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Peter, certainly, except that the figures in the OP are not compatible: different configurations, different conditions, different versions. For what it's worth, MiG-21 and J-7 are practically the same.
  $endgroup$
  – Zeus
  Jun 13 at 1:47
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

According to your own data you provide, the MiG-21 has the longer range of the 3...

As to the J7 having shorter range, I'd not be surprised if the engine the Chinese use is less efficient than the Soviet one it was copied from (and it is indeed an almost carbon copy of an early model MiG-21), and the same'd be true for many other of the aircraft's systems (my guess would be for example that the MiG would have thinner metal and flush rivets, rather than thicker metal and round headed rivets on the more primitively built J7, making it lighter and more aerodynamically efficient).

The JF-17 is a more modern development of the J7 concept with improved materials, engines, aerodynamics, giving overall better performance.

Mirage III and MiG-21 were both designed for a very similar mission: short range rapid response interception of incoming enemy strikes (and especially bomber strikes) with air to air missiles only (guns being added pretty much as an afterthought, neither aircraft was designed with the agility needed for a dogfighter). They didn't need long range, the idea was to get up to altitude as quickly as possible, launch missiles at the approaching enemies, then get down again to refuel and rearm and do it all over again. Later variants were given increased range and agility to allow them more versatility, but that was the original concept behind both aircraft.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149

answered Jun 12 at 9:51

jwentingjwenting

12.3k13149