Member postings for Pete

There were a whole lot of parts made to accuracy levels most of us couldn't even replicate today, and long before dro's or ball screws were invented Nealeb. As good as I think my dro is, if I really had to, I could machine to about the same levels of accuracy using a more rudimentary method of what I mentioned on the first page of this thread. That would be extremely slow way to work, although semi permanently mounting the indicators square to the table travels and having clips with true alignments to those travels for various lengths of measuring rods would help speed that up by quite a bit. But it's still more than possible. And without a dro, an indicator set up against the edge or end of the table can be used to show where your backlash ends and the table begins to move. Note your machines dial number at that point or zero it, then move to your known coordinate using either that dial or the indicator for shorter distances within the indicators travel. Again it's much slower, but backlash on manual machine tools is inevitable in various amounts and has always required compensation for in one way or another.

In 1805 Maudslay invented and produced a 1/10,000th capable bench micrometer built using a lathe that no doubt had a large amount of back lash. And machine produced threads had only been invented 42 years before that. By 1868 B & S were producing micrometers very similar to what we still have today. I have a book about Tool & Gauge Work from 1907 and it has drawings for a shop built dti. With it, and a set of shop built hardened and ground tool maker buttons, plus a good set of micrometers. They were hand positioning parts on a sleeve bearing lathes face plate and producing bored and ground master gauges to amazingly accurate levels. While I could probably just measure what they were doing if I was being really careful, neither I or my current lathe could do the same. Even with the best dro made today I still couldn't because my lathe and it's spindle bearings aren't accurate enough.

Depending on how high the accuracy any mill has been built to, or if your using metric / imperial on a machine using the opposite measurement system, those dials and feed screws may or may not have the capability something out of the average requires. High accuracy ACME feed screws and nuts are easily found through specialist manufacturer's. Getting something to fit on the smaller machines may have real issues. And as the guaranteed accuracy levels go up, they get much more expensive than just fitting one of the cheaper dro systems that are available today.

All this is well outside Steve Huckins original thread topic, but there seems to be some amount of for and against opinions about dro's. Yes of course you can produce good work without them. That's been well proven for over a 100 years even in the pages of Model Engineer. Other than the extra cost, they have few disadvantages and more than enough advantages to far outweigh those. And for those with less experience, they definitely help prevent a lot of errors on there parts if there being used properly. How many have added a dro and then posted that they now think it was a mistake?

Some plastics are what's known as a hygroscopic material and can retain and release air borne humidity much like wood. So all plastics aren't created equal. And I have the exact same boxed set of Emco ESX 25 collets as you do Gray. I also remember what they cost almost 35 years ago. So I'd be quite upset having that happen. But my shop is climate controlled and I'm in a fairly dry climate area. So I've had no marking from the plywood they used. I think machining your own aluminum bushings for collet storage would be hard to beat. A fair amount of work, but there's no moisture issues and it's more than soft enough to not mark the collets.

I'd very much agree about the Workshop Practice book Milling in a Lathe. There's also a few jobs where a lathe milling attachment can be a bit easier to work with and sometimes even more accurate than a vertical mill. Boring between centers, or cutting a longer rack gear would be just two of them. At that point your using the lathe much like a rudimentary horizontal mill. While the head on my mill can be rotated to a horizontal position, the set up and alignment would take longer both before and after the jobs done, and it still can't use those between centers boring bars. For larger or longer through holes, I'd much prefer boring between centers over single point boring on the lathe or mill simply because of tool rigidity and accurate bores with no taper. There's a few maybe less required jobs such as drilling and tapping on the ends of shafts that are longer and larger than the spindle or overall length the lathe can take where those milling attachments are also worth having. You still need to block up and at least support the far end of a longer shaft, but it does work.

Yes in most cases any vertical mill might be more rigid, but a milling attachment still has those uses. I also have my lathe set up so it can use most of the same tooling my R8 taper mill uses with just a ER collet chuck or tool shank change. So even shorter reverse turning with a boring or B & F head can be done on those shaft ends. I'd also say that lathe head stocks are much more rigid for accurate tool holding than any comparable sized vertical mill would be. It's the work holding that isn't, so those lighter cuts are mandatory. Bolting work pieces or almost any use of a face plate is seldom mentioned or even shown on Youtube. I think it's an underutilized method, and while it can be slow to set up, quite versatile.

I'd agree with all of Jason's thoughts and about the marking out when you have a dro. I'll do so on more complex parts and it helps when changing the part orientation in the vise for which side of the part or line you should really be on for the approximate location of other features and to prevent stupid mistakes.

I know I'll get some argument, but I think it was in one of T.D. Walshaws books where he details just how inaccurate marking out and then center punching for hole locations can be. Apparently he was present or somehow got the results from a technical school where they ran a test with a number of students who already had a couple of years experience. My guess is it was probably done sometime in the 1960's to maybe 1980's since dro's of any kind weren't even mentioned. For the first test they did conventional marking out and center punching for a drill press, the second, marking out, center punching and then conventional hole location using the machine dials, the third was only with the dials. In every case that center punching was surprisingly much less accurate with a few locations up to .020" away from there correct location. And that coordinate location was the best. For full scale fabrication work, then that center punching is probably fine or at least good enough in most cases. For a lot of what were doing, you either do so and as Jason mentioned use that to transfer drill a mating part, or imo much better is that coordinate location by either the dials or dro. For larger or parts that can't for whatever reason be put on a mill, then of course I'd still center punch just to get the drill started at least close to where I want it.

Ok then with that variable speed head I don't have any experience with them. I do know your not supposed to make any speed changes with the motor running so be careful of that Carl. Obviously there has to be a way to replace the belts on the variable speed models. I just don't know how time consuming or complex that might be.

Yes your 100% correct about the differences between analog and digital Michael. Digital is either the number it's on or higher and lower, there's no interpreting between the divisions like you could with something that's analog.

Prior to the invention of our now common dro's, those screw pitch accuracy problems were a large issue for high accuracy machine tools. Moore Tools in the U.S. spent very large amounts of time, effort and money trying to manufacture feed screws and nuts with much lower deviations for there jig borers and grinders. Even they failed. They got close, but still not quite good enough. And any wear over some time obviously affects there ultimate pitch accuracy as well. Instead and what they did is sort of come up with an analog method for high accuracy machine coordinate moves on each axis. 1.000" travel .0001" reading dial indicators and what were known as distance rods in almost exact 1" increments clipped in place depending on how far those moves were. Those were a bit like what we have today for micrometer setting rods. But those expensive distance rod sets were built with much higher accuracy levels than even those micrometer rods. Today those jig borer and grinder sets can still be found at normally fairly reasonable prices because few other than hobbyist's would use them. They would still work well for straight line X,Y,Z moves on a mill. But anything more complex such as bolt circles would require the same good understanding of trigonometry to calculate the X,Y positioning, and a lot more time to properly use them. At high enough levels of accuracy, having more exact environmental temperature control becomes important. All a bit outside what most model engineering would ever require, but still at least worth knowing how it was done I think. I've used that method and my micrometer rods to make fairly high accuracy carriage moves on my lathes a few times.

But it's also worth understanding than no dro can compensate for the inevitable machine or part deflections. It's still cut a bit oversize, measure and then make your final adjustments process. They get you close and are faster to use as you mentioned, but no matter how perfect a dro might be, our machines and methods are still a bit inexact.

Edited By Pete on 21/09/2023 07:46:25

Most Model Engineering doesn't take extremely high accuracy since much of what we do is simply fitting one part to another with the correct clearances for smooth operation. What is important and not stressed enough on these forums is paying a lot of attention that your machine alignments are correct. Square and true parts to each other is extremely important for any functional model engine and its operation since there's so little HP developed. Where a mill dro really helps is the easy and repeatable location accuracy for machined features. Any decent dro today can allow items such as bolt hole locations to very close limits. All feed screws including the best in the world will have measurable amounts of what are called lead and lag pitch errors. And the less you pay for any machine tool, the higher the chances those errors will be larger. So an accurate dro system can produce better or at least more repeatable accuracy than the machine itself was built to produce. They also pretty much eliminate any feed screw and nut backlash that takes a fair amount of mental arithmetic to keep track of or your parts will be scrap.

But not all dro's are created equal. There's 3 terms that need to be properly understood and then researched for whatever system your planning to buy. Accuracy, Repeatability and Resolution. Any of the better dro's and metrogy equipment will all have those specifications listed. Accuracy is mostly a combination of all the effort that went into the system and it's components to manufacture it. Repeatability is also somewhat related to producing that accuracy, and while both are related, there still not the exact same thing. So that repeatability number means how well it's components can be expected to repeat the same measurement distance each time. Resolution gets confused by most, it simply means how many digits there are to the right of the decimal mark. You could have a display showing .0001" or .001 mm as the smallest digit, yet that does not mean what you bought is in fact capable of that level of accuracy or repeatability. There's also a world wide standard in use, and that for good metrology equipment, it should be accurate and repeatable to + or - one digit of it's smallest division on it's markings or display.

Yes those much cheaper bar type scales and displays may show measurements to the nearest .001" or .025 mm. But the guaranteed specifications on even Starrett or Mitutoyo bar scales would still allow maximum inaccuracy's of that + - one count. On average those two brands will generally have about half the maximum allowable on any of there metrolgy equipment I've checked. But any of those bar type scales are poorly protected from cutting fluids and swarf when used on machine tools because that's not the environment they were really designed for. So there long term life spans are usually fairly poor because of that. The better and more usual dro's today with the separate display units will or should have a lot of built in useful programs to make them highly useful. On a mill, then quickly finding your part center, pitch circle for bolt holes, point to point locations of holes etc are imo highly desirable. Even having your Y axis zero preset on the rear fixed jaw of the vise speeds up the work by a lot since it's always in that known and repeatable position. And to get the best out of a dro on any mill, then good edge finding technique and a tool that will provide a high level of both accuracy and repeatability for a part edge or surface is also required.

It's also impossible to give all the examples of how any dro can be mounted. All of that depends on what exact machine and dro system you have. One almost universal requirement would be having a dial indicator and magnetic base since the manufacturer's will usually recommend those scales be set up within at least .001" or .025 mm or better in two dimensions along there full length. But I doubt there's many dro's where the end user didn't have to machine at least some parts to adapt there dro to the specifics of the machine there mounted to. It's not usually all that hard to do, it just takes a bit of thought.

Fwiw and something I learned in my career is that taking the few extra minutes to do things in a fail safe way always pays off. Cutting corners just to save a bit of time almost always has a way of coming back on you.

I can't say about the real BP's and probably there's differences between a UK and American model anyway. First leave the switch wired to the motor and just remove the switch mounting screws, and on mine, all I have to do is loosen and pivot the motor as you would when changing belt positions, drop the belt off the bottom pulley grooves on both the motor and spindle drive, remove both motor mounting bolts and the motor lifts out. If yours is similar? That all takes less than 10 minutes and you'll find the head a lot lighter to move, plus that head transports much more stably. Easier to reassemble as well. I first put the head on and get its 4 mounting bolts tightened up, then put the motor, switch and drive belt back on. Now if yours is the variable speed model, I really can't say about those. My personal opinion is the belt change model and a VFD combination gives you the best options with far less future maintenance issues with the known faulty plastic bushings used on those variable speed heads that end up causing quite a bit of noise once they start to wear. When I bought mine, I tried getting the variable speed version, but they were out of stock. In hindsight and like I said, what I did get worked out I think much better.

What you will find a bit frustrating when your reassembling it is getting those 4 head mounting bolts all the way through the holes in the head until that head can freely seat against the face of the tilt / nod knuckle end. It's sort of like using a drill press to both rotate the table and pivot it's support arm around until a drill location lines up with where you want the hole on a part held in a vise. The main difference though is you have 4 to do all at once and those head mounting bolts are a bit loose in the slots in the face of the knuckle, so they don't stay where you position them by hand. As I said, I set the spindle end on the table, balance or support the head in place, then use the knee for the correct elevation and X,Y moves on the table to move the head into alignment to start those bolts. Once the head is positioned correctly, then use the Y axis to move the head in as you fiddle with positioning each bolt shank. All this is much easier to do the second time than the first though. While the head could be lifted onto those bolts, it would be heavy and awkward to do, it's a whole lot easier to just use the mills own X,Y, Z motions to do the heavy work for you. I'd also still chose to do it that way even with an engine hoist since you can make easier and much finer adjustments using the knee and table.

And here's your first operational tip, once that head is back on and your no longer going to be using the knee for awhile. ALWAYS take the knee crank and just reverse it on the pin that sticks out of the knees vertical adjustment shaft so the handle end is then pointed towards the machine. That's a non optional habit to develop right away. Leave that crank and handle in its normal operating position and you will walk into it at some point, very painful when you do. You will forget to do so at some point and so have I, but I did warn you.

My apology's for using North American terms and non metric dimensions in this.

Since I don't have a welder I have to work around that. There's been a few pictures, forum posts, Youtube videos showing even R8 shanks welded to steel plate as a holding fixture to re/re the head. Frankly that's way over kill for what the job requires. I have a full sized head with a 2 hp 3 ph motor on mine. Remove that motor and the head is just manageable to be lifted off the table and moved for at least a short distances by a single person. As I mentioned earlier, the spindle can be fully retracted within the head, set the spindle lock and then move the knee up to take the head weight. On mine the head will balance on the end of that spindle sitting and supported by the table. While it would be much easier with two people, I removed and replaced the head head by myself.

If I was at all concerned though, I'd just use a couple layers of 3/4" plywood or a wide piece of construction grade lumber such as 2" x 6" on up to even a 2" x 12 and a length of 1/2" ready rod with a couple of nuts up through the spindle and a nut at the top to clamp the wood to the bottom of the spindle and keep the head vertical to remove / replace it. Even easier would be just using a tee nut in one of the table slots and a length of that ready rod matching the tee nuts thread pitch running up through the spindle with a nut on top to hold the head in place. I have a bad habit of vastly over building. And I've moved a whole lot of very heavy items over my career without any failures. But even with that, I think the wood or tee nut with that ready rod is more than good enough. But one thing to be extremely careful of when transporting the head while it's separated from the rest of the mill, Make 100% sure the head can't roll around in the vehicle. There's a few rather delicate controls on them that are very easy to break off. Better to not ask how I learned that lesson.

Disassembling, moving and then reassembling is just the start though Carl. I'd recommend after you've got that done and maybe just before it's back to being operational. Start a new separate thread on the operation of this type of mill. There's some little tips and tricks that these mills have that aren't quite as intuitive or easy to pick up on your own as it would seem. And a few that might save you some fairly complex and expensive repairs. Something that's rarely mentioned on forums like this and in case at some point in the future your milling requirements get a little outside the usual. Then Bridgeport mills and for at least my clone have some important dimensions and little machined areas on the head that work with a large number of accessory heads that were designed specifically for these mills. That's one of the main reasons I chose mine even though it was a bit more than I wanted to spend. For myself, that decision has worked out well. There also not the most rigid of mill designs, at a hobby level that probably doesn't matter too much. What they are though is very versatile and much, much easier to buy tooling for, set up and work with than any of the smaller round or dovetail column bench top mills that are available today.

If you have a second person there shouldn't be. But if your not sure, use your engine hoist to lower it once it's past 45 degrees towards the floor. I took mine apart and reassembled it without ever once operating a BP type mill. It's just takes some common sense and a bit of thought.

With mine I just used about a 4' length of wooden 2" x 4" in the top of the casting where the turret cap bolts on to give some leverage to then pull the casting backwards. I don't know about on real BP's, but my clones casting was ok and fairly stable on it's back. If yours isn't, then maybe bolt another 2" x 4" to the bottom of the base casting at the back and across the width of that base casting. With an older and used machine, internal rusting on parts can be an issue. Places like that ram and turret cap dovetail for example. I've read a few posts mentioning the ram was seized from rust. So I'd still pull it apart and clean if required, then re-lube to prevent any further rust. Just don't force anything taking it apart. All you'll do is damage parts.

I disassembled my clone including the knee for the weight reduction. I'll admit it's a bit harder to get it back on unless you know the trick. Lay the column and base over on it's back with the knee ways facing up. Then it's pretty easy to slide the knee onto the ways. In hind sight I'm glad I removed it since it made removing all the slathered on anti rust concoction easy. With any used mill, then I'd do the same just for cleaning. They work SO much better clean, properly lubricated and correctly adjusted. In fact that detail cleaning will generally allow you to adjust the gibs a bit tighter while still remaining smooth to operate. With all the old black congealed lubrication that will be full of wear particles, chips, dirt etc it makes a large difference. I'd also solvent wash the feed screws, nuts and all way surfaces, then re-lubricate as everything goes back together. When you remove the top turret cap reach in through the side door and upwards to hold the spider as the final bolts are removed. Reassembly is the opposite.

Getting the 4 head bolts indexed and spaced so the head can go all the way on is a bit frustrating. Set the head without the motor on it with the spindle end on a piece of plywood on the table, have someone else balance it. Then use the knee, X,Y axes to align the head to the knuckle face. Adjust the bolt spacing as you move the head in with the Y axis. It takes a bit of back and forth playing with the bolt positioning and Y axis screw until the head is fully on. Don't over torque the nuts. Beyond about 40-50 ft lbs you'll start to deform the spindle bore. It's possible to over tighten and then lock the spindle in that precision bore.

And I'd very much agree with Clive's point about being careful with that knee gib. You VERY much do not want to break it. It's extremely easy to have the small end stuck and wedged in place to where it's more than difficult to remove. If it were to break? DO NOT move the knee trying to get what's left out, you'll make it 10 times harder to remove.

Yes your right Fulmen, BP type mills for the obvious reasons are a bit unstable due to the weight up high. Even with the head and motor rotated, I'd still use lag screws or bolts through the 4 holes in the base and the pallet to adequately fasten the machine to the pallet. Even with that I'd still move it slow and careful. I spent my career moving heavy objects from time to time with some up to 50 tons. Failed moves resulting in damage I saw from others were in general caused by trying to go too fast or not thinking the job through well enough. And the less experience you have the more time and thought is required. No one remembers later how fast you got it done, but you will remember the damage or even worse, any injuries.

Exact and more details are important, terminology is as well. Since you mentioned checking with an indicator I suspect you mean run out and not play as each has completely different meanings. But if you mean play as in the arbor is still loose? As Diogenes asked, what spindle taper is the machine? And 1.5 mm / .060" shows something is very wrong. Unusable in fact. At most it should be around .025 mm / .001" or less for a decently ground arbor. Either you have bought the incorrect arbor taper for it, or on something like a R8 taper machine, possibly the spindles internal key isn't engaged with the side slot in the arbor. If it is R8? The arbors front taper should be pulled up fully within the spindle taper and almost flush with the end of the spindle. About all you should then see is the bottom taper that accepts the drill chuck taper below the spindle nose. That can only be done if the side slot is indexed properly to engage with that internal key.

If your going to move it as one single piece, then first lower the knee, slack the 4 head bolts off and rotate the head 180 degrees. On most or maybe all BP type mills, those tilt and nod gears are a bit fragile, take as much of the weight with your off hand to support the head as it's rotated around to lessen the load on that gearing. Place a wide wooden board or piece of plywood between the table top and the end of the motor that's now facing down. Raise the knee to just take some of the motor and head weight. Then set the knee locks. That lowers the center of gravity as much as possible and its how afaik all the new one's are shipped from whatever manufacturer is building them. Mine was shipped exactly like that.

Once anything is picked up with a pallet jack, the pallet can't slide off the forks. The jack starts out lowered to the bottom of it's lift range, the forks and front wheels get shoved all the way through the opening in the pallet and then the whole thing is lifted. The weight and the front wheels prevent the pallet from ever sliding off the forks.

I've just spent a very enjoyable couple of hrs slowly going through the whole thread and studying your pictures Taf. Very well done considering your lack of a proper straight and dovetail edge to start with. One wonders just how worn out some of the machine tools they used were to get parts that non parallel and out of square as much as they were. Whatever they used to clamp that column down to machine it must have flexed the casting to get that much of a hollow in it after it was released from the clamps or vises. I suspect there dovetail cutters have been resharpened many times and very inaccurately to end up with that 53 degree angle. Or maybe that factory was using a tool & cutter grinder they built themselves? I also think your whole thread is a great object lesson about not assuming anything with some of these off shore machine tools unless you've personally checked for exactly what you have.

You asked if ER 40 were better than the 32 Robin. Not really, for qualified collets that have some kind of guarantee you can depend on, there pretty much equal at any size right down to even the ER 8 series that have a minimum 1 mm bore size. Without question the larger internal bores would be much easier to do with small powered grinding wheels and laps if that's how there being done. So far I've never seen any videos about how high end collets are generally made. I suspect that today, and in whatever order they choose to do it in, the collet blanks might be rough turned, heat treated, the smaller bores possibly EDM burnt, the exteriors hard turned and slotted, then finish ground. And for at least the smaller bore collets or maybe all of them, possibly lapped for straight, round and to size. But it would seem logical and easier to complete the bore first and use that as a reference datum for all the rest of the finish exterior grinding so its all true to that bore.

Since the jigs, fixtures and more specialized equipment would seem to have roughly the same requirements for low priced collets or top of the line, one wonders if it's just as easy to make high accuracy collets verses something just about worthless. I have a few examples of off shore tooling, and simply can't understand how the jig, fixture or machine tool alignments were ever allowed to get that far out. So maybe cheap collet manufacturing is no different? I do know there's some not all that large but highly specialized German and Swiss multi axis cnc grinders that come with a few million dollar price tag for a pretty bare machine. But I simply don't know enough about exactly how there being made to judge what the minimum infrastructure, equipment and tooling costs would be between the cheap and much more expensive collet manufacturers.

I'd think .001" is still doing pretty good Andrew, but as others have already said. What your using any work or tool holding system for dictates how much is or isn't adequate. There's obviously a bit of a difference between making a new wheel barrow axle and machining something like a piston or as aptly pointed out, watch parts.

A lot of the following I wish I'd understood a lot better and much sooner than I did. But fwiw.

Yes the run out check you did is important, but it's still only verifying the chucks taper in the radial plane. There's a bit more to it than that, and visualizing how ER collets and all the multiple surfaces involved are expected to work in all 3 dimensions is I think helpful. To start with, there's how well that chucks internal collet taper is aligned and sitting exactly square to the lathe spindle and lathe bed in the axial plane. As the work or tool length gets longer, some of the extremely hard to measure and tiny inaccuracy's get magnified to be more than noticeable. ER collets can close and grip the work or tool shank more than enough when there properly torqued. But if the nut threads or the same on the chuck body, the grinding on the nuts internal front taper, collet O.D. and I.D. or there tapers aren't all square to the lathes spindle and to each other, then as the collet is closed, it inevitably gets forced slightly askew. Collets are obviously flexible or they couldn't grip, its that same flex and the minor clearances that allows them to be forced slightly out of square within the chuck recess even when it might be 100% perfect. That drives your axial run out way up no matter how precise your chuck and collets radial run out happens to be. So the chuck or collets exact run out numbers don't always give the full information about what level of accuracy they can produce. But even so and just like even a highly inaccurate 3 jaw, if any shorter work is fully machined at a single chucking, then any inaccuracy becomes almost unimportant. The work will still be as true as your spindle and bearings allow. Or for longer and larger diameter work, there's still really nothing that can equal the accuracy of the old school method and turning between centers. I trust that over even my best chucks or collets.

ER collets also have quite rigid requirements for the minimum tool shank or in your case, the work piece lengths used. Too little on the lower end of the collets closing range and you can permanently deform or even break segments out of the collet. 5C and many other collet designs as an example close using a single front taper, so any short lengths have no real effect. ER's close and grip from both ends, it's a built in design feature so as much grip and rigidity as possible is obtained when tool holding which is what they were really designed for. So I use a minimum of at least 80% work or tool shank length inserted into the collet bore before I close them. I think that's worth a mention because for work holding, most of us are shall we say a bit conservative about cutting off and just wasting excess material.

One of the very best sources about choosing the various ER collet and nut types, using and maintaining them, and why you would do so that I know of would be here, https://www.youtube.com/@REGOFIX

For a bit of extra information and if the full development history of the ER collet design is out there, I haven't found it yet. After a long search I found a virtually new and fairly specialized but now long out of production radial milling head. Luckily it also came with a full set of the optional Schaublin 25 series collets the OEM offered. So I've had a chance that maybe not many others have had to measure and compare them against my set of ER 25 collets. From that and knowing Rego-Fix loosely based there ER collets on the original Schaublin design. It seems that way back in 1972 they kept both of the same collet nose and body tapers, but added a bit over .100" to that series length and mostly at the collets front for that extraction groove, enlarged the chuck body to allow for the larger diameter nut to gain the ability of pulling the collet enough to open.The Schaublin collets use quite a bit smaller chuck body and certainly aren't quite as easy to use, but I'd say Rego - Fix's real innovation was their much more complex and imo very clever nut design.

If that pillar drill really was GHT's then it was a find for sure Will. And what's been modified or added to sure looks like the attention to detail and craftsmanship he would have done. Much of that is very similar to what he also used on his UPT design.