Ol Paint

https://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10.-XB-47D.pdf Apparently, it reached a speed of 597mph. Speaking of re-engined B-17s, the XB-38 was a pretty aircraft: Doug

On an unrelated note, Michigan's Governor Whitmer apparently tried to hide behind folders while in the Oval Office... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer-hide-her-face-in-shame-in-viral-oval-office-photo/ar-AA1COfh1 Really? Doug

In which years between 2016, when President Trump first entered office, and 2024--the last year for which we have data--did the EU meet or exceed the 2% target? Oh, that's right, zero. That's not "...most of Europe is now exceeding it..." From SIPRI/World Bank numbers, 2016-2023. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2023&locations=EU-FR-DE-AT-NO-SE-DK&start=2016 The EU hasn't spent more than 2% on defense since 1993. The European NATO allies have a lot of ground to make up. Doug

That appears to be skewed, presumably for effect. 87% (not 94%) of stock is owned by the top 10% (not the top 8%). https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/ That still sounds like an elite cabal of plutocrats hoarding all the money, doesn't it? Except that the top 1% net worth individuals aren't just the billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Scrooge McDuck. The top 10% contains a lot of retirement-age folks that were careful with their money. To be in the top 1%, your net worth has to be >$11.7 million. The top 2% is anyone above $2.7 million The top 5%, >$1.17 million The top 10%, >$970,000. The top 50%, >$585,000 https://www.kiplinger.com/personal-finance/605075/are-you-rich If someone started working in 1985 at age 20, made the median income every year for a 40-year career, and if they invested 10% of their income each year in the S&P500 (average annual return 12-14%), that person would have a retirement fund that would place them in the top 5%. That's assuming they had no other assets (like a house). They aren't going to be buying a Gulfstream G650, but they're still in the top 5%. I'd be surprised there weren't more than a couple folks in the top 10% posting in this thread. Doug

Explain how this port: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dm3ZwTQHgn4X6Fv36 ..is going to transship all of the containers and other cargo to evade tariffs. Explain how a territory with no people, only penguins, is going to import and re-export goods, to make use of a tariff advantage? You don't think there are rules that already cover the actual origin of goods? Or maybe put the tinfoil hat on and call this 4D chess...Encouraging investment in industry and infrastructure in smaller territories. Look at the US tariff policy, suddenly providing economic opportunity across the globe, increasing prosperity for all! Doug

In 2024, the US had approximately 67,000 military personnel in Europe, a level that's been steady since c.2009. Germany had an active military in 2024 of 180,000. Norway's active duty military was <30,000. Given the propensity of some members of this grate site to wave the bloody shirt over sending personnel to Afghanistan, to turn around and pretend the US military deployments to Europe is a token exactly the attitude that is causing Americans to re-evaluate the alliance. The difference between the US and Europe is that the US asks for a helping hand, Europe asks for a hand-out. It's also ironic RETAC21, Der Zeitgeist, and seahawk are hiding behind Lithuania, a country that has actually been meeting 2% GDP military spending since 2018 per the World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=LT-ES-DE Typically, in these discussions, note will be made that certain countries--including Lithuania--have been meeting their obligations and that they stand out as exceptions. But you guys are too busy reflexively looking for excuses and gotchas to pretend the Americans are unreasonable. Doug

Free competition does. There's some good information in here about the actual impact of the tariffs as well as the non-reciprocal nature of the tariff regimes. Relevant to my prior post, the US has been charging 2.5% import duty/tariff on vehicles. Compare to the UK charging 10% duty (+20% VAT) and you start to see why Americans might be less than impressed by the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Doug

You mean friends like the UK that apply a 20% VAT and a 10% import duty on US made cars? And stop waving the bloody shirt. Stuart already wore it out. Doug

George Foreman, 76. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/general/article/george-foreman-dead-obit-boxer-preacher-grill-20234990.php Doug

The timeline is not so surprising when looked at in context. The Packard Merlin was the shiny new kid on the block and represented a sudden source of engines that could be applied to production. In negotiating the initial production, Gen. Arnold received a commitment that the USAAC would receive engines for an additional 3,000 aircraft above those included in existing production programs (18,000 authorized by Congress) in exchange for supporting the British Purchasing commission's order for 6,000 units. Above quote from "Vee's for Victory!" by Daniel D. Whitney. With a supply of engines (initially single-stage supercharged) without airframes on order, the engines essentially got shopped around to various programs. Ultimately, the V-1650-1s ended up going into the P-40s. But that source of engines being shopped around by the USG and given North American's involvement in potential P-40 production, plus the prototype Merlin-powered P-40 starting flight testing in June 1941, followed by serial production deliveries starting in January 1942 (per America's Hundred Thousand), the mix of factors is there for North American to have at least done some studies on the Merlin Mustang before any official moves were made. The Merlin isn't magic. The P-40E was powered by the V-1710-39/F3R single-speed/single-stage engine rated at 1,150hp military power. The P-40F running the two-speed/single-stage V-1650-1 rated at 1,240hp. According to America's Hundred Thousand, the P-40E at 8,400lb was capable of 360mph at 15,000ft (best speed/altitude combo), which was 5mph slower than the P-40F (at a slightly higher weight of 8,500lb) at that model's best altitude of 20,000ft. However, the Merlin P-40F was slower than the E at 15,000ft by about 10mph. (I will note that the typically excellent Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles charts the P-40F performance as being faster at all altitudes, so pick your poison.*) The point is that similar displacement, similar weight, and similar boost levels will produce similar power output and similar performance. The real improvement for the Mustang was Rolls-Royce's/Stanley Hooker's excellent supercharging setup in the two-speed/two-stage models coupled to the relatively sudden availability of the engines and the easier integration of the induction package into the airframe. It was a confluence of factors that produced a good aircraft. But there were a bunch of other equally good, or better, aircraft also flying. Speaking of which, the R-2800 fighters shot down far more aircraft for the USA than the third-place Merlin fighters... Doug * Then there's the documentation Greg provides on the Allison P-40E operations at higher than authorized manifold pressures to produce over 1,500hp, but that's a different can of worms.

From what read over the years, the T-38 is now considered to be one of the most difficult aircraft to fly in the USAF with the modern fighters being less demanding of stick-and-rudder skills. Which is ironic, since it was considered easy to fly compared to the Century Series fighters that were in service when it arrived on the scene. I believe it's one of the things being emphasized for the T-7A--to be more of a lead-in for pilots as systems managers. Doug

Build in large numbers and expect losses, is a viable strategy. The fleet should provide air defense cover at least until there's enough of beach/bridgehead for GBAD to take over. Doug

He said establishment drones. Both parties have been busily selling out. Remember the Clinton's passing rocket tech to the PRC? Or both Clinton and Bush building up their aerospace? And you lot on the other side of the Atlantic are even worse. At least the US is finally trying to make a course change. Doug

"If you make a mistake, lose your license." - Sean Duffy That will make the skies safer because controllers never make mistakes and the guy flying the airplane should slavishly obey orders. So when does Duffy revoke SpaceX's license? Doug

Looking at the long history of "foreign policy minds" and the disasters they've wrought, that's hardly a reassuring thought. The foreign policy minds have brought us a belligerent China, an aggressive Russia, a navel-gazing western Europe, and an overextended US. Foreign policy minds love playing at war like its a toy to be dialed up and down while people are killed and maimed, all the while decrying humantarian suffering for sympathy points. Doug