UAV or manned aircraft?

Aviation Week has a nice cover story on the AT-6, a newish light fighter. It's a single engine two place turboprop that looks pretty much like the classic WWII P51 Mustang. Such an aircraft is much cheaper and has better loiter time than a pure jet. So long as it never encounters enemy jet fighters, it's good cheap air support for your ground forces.
The Aviation Week article doesn't talk much about those issues. They do a lot of talking about the "network centric" features that allow rapid data transfer. Not that I would buy a fighter plane to do rapid data transfer, I buy fighter planes to put ordnance on target. Then they enthused about the "intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance" (ISR) capabilities, in simple words you can load camera pods on the wings and do photo recon with it. That's nice, and versatile and all, but that's not the reason I buy fighter planes.
Then they opine that something like this can be superior to UAV's, which is true. Two sets of eyes in a cockpit is better at spotting ground targets than any amount of camera pods.

America's Most Wanted List

With the recent unlamented demise of Osama Bin Ladin, the FBI's ten most wanted list got updated, according to the Wall St Journal. The top slots are filled with Islamic terrorists, but the last slot is Daniel Andreas San Diego. Mr. Diego is a US citizen and is wanted for animal rights terrorism. He is accused of bombing two companies, Chiron a vaccine maker, and Shaklee a maker of vitamins and shampoo. Mr. Diego objects to the use of animals in testing their products.
Does this mean that animal rights terrorists are the next bad guys, after we deal with Al Quada?
How tough can animal rights terrorists be, compared to Al Quada? Could this be the famous light at the end of the tunnel?

Natural Gas to power trucks.

Article on same in today's Wall St Journal. T Boone Pickens and the natural gas industry want a federal subsidy for the purchase of natural gas burning trucks. United Parcel just purchased 48 tractors (the engine and driver part of an 18 wheeler). The standard diesel version costs $95,000, the natural gas burning version costs $195,000. UPS managed to wangle a $4 million dollar subsidy from Uncle Sam to defray expenses. They also said the company won't buy any more natural gas burners without more subsidy.
Some thing is wrong here. A natural gas burning engine is about the same as a diesel engine. It should cost about the same to make. I can see paying a little extra, say 10%, but paying twice as much is a rip off. If we should be so stupid as to put in a subsidy, we will be subsidizing rip off artists.
Natural gas is cheap compared to diesel fuel, like half the price. For an 18 wheeler, which gets 6 miles per gallon, and does a lotta driving, natural gas will save money, assuming you don't get ripped off buying the truck in the first place. Subsidies are not required.

Words of the Weasel. Pt 19

I saw this on Congress.org

By Frances Symes

"Tax expenditures are revenue losses attributable to provisions of tax law that allow for special exclusion, exemption, or deduction or provide for a special credit or deferral of tax liability. The associated loss in revenue totals is estimated as equaling around $1 trillion each year."

Not so. "Tax expenditure" is democrat-speak for the amount of money that could be raised if they hiked taxes.

Alternate Energy at Mittersill.

Sounds better than just stacking firewood doesn't it. Here we have a full cord dumped on the lawn. I could have paid K&K Brooks, my wood supplier, to stack it, but I'm cheap, and the exercise is good for me.




Here we are half way done. I can hear the grass rejoicing as each piece of firewood is lifted off, allowing the grass to straighten up and see the sun. For all that work, the pile doesn't look much smaller does it?



All done. Only took me three days, counting Sunday which rained all day so I didn't stack much. That will keep the fireplace burning for the next two winters. It's green, but it has the rest of the year to season, it will burn OK by Christmas and burn really well next winter.
By the way, Blogger kinda sucks at placing photos and text. It insists on putting the text next to the wrong photographs. Sorry about that.

The world oil market is a futures market.

We have countless democratic pundits on the air, in the media, claiming that increased oil drilling in the US won't bring down gasoline prices. They say it will take too long to bring new production on line, and there won't be enough of it, and oh dear oh dear we will just have to tough out $4 a gallon gasoline.
This is all malarkey. The oil market is a futures market. Users of oil (refiners mostly) sign deals to take delivery of oil from producers. The price they agree upon is based on what they think the price will be in the future. If they think prices are going up, they will pay a little more to get their needed crude. If they think prices might be going down, they will postpone signing a deal, hoping for a better price next week.
Should the market become convinced that the Americans are serious about bringing new oil to market, the price will fall. Obama made a speech the other day promising to increase production. Trouble is, nobody really believes him. The market figures Obama is just talking to make political points. They think Obama is too deep in hock to the greenies, who hate production of damn near anything, to actually do anything to increase oil production.
As for timely, the industry could get production from the "Alaska National Wildlife Refuge" (ANWR) flowing down the Alaska pipeline in less than 12 months. The much ballyhooed ANWR is just another piece of frozen tundra above the Arctic circle. There is a zillion square miles of tundra up there. We will never run out of frozen tundra.

Morning at the shooting range

Finally got out to shoot my new rifle. Put the Marlin 30-30, targets, ammunition, tape measure, patching tape and binoculars into the car and drove out to the range. Weather was flaky, threatening rain, but it didn't. I set the target up 100 yards out. Doesn't seem like very far, but upon returning to the firing position, that target looked awfully small.
The Marlin, a classic from the 1950's, has an action smooth as glass, and a beautiful even trigger pull. This is the first time I've shot centerfire rifle since training for Viet Nam back in 1967. I squeezed off a string and then peered down range thru the binoculars. No luck, my eyes cannot see bullet holes at 100 yards even with 7 power binoculars. So I walk down range and take a look. Not too shabby. All the rounds are high, but inside the target, grouped inside a 7 inch circle. So I adjust the sights one notch and try again. Must have been the wrong way, the string goes clean over the target. Zero holes. So, I adjust the sight one notch the other way, try again, and I get a 4 inch group, a little high, a little right, but inside the target. And this with iron sights.
The Marlin has impressive report and a solid recoil. 30-30 is clearly enough cartridge to deal with anything I'm ever going to encounter in New Hampshire. The gun buffs don't say much about 30-30, 'cause it is so established, and what's to say about it? I looked up the ballistics, 30-30 isn't as powerful as the WWII rifle cartridges like 30-06, but it is a good deal more powerful than the ammo used by modern assault rifles like the M16 and the AK47.
After burning thru $30 worth of brand new 30-30 ammunition I switched guns, tried out my Ruger 10/22 on same target. My first try gets a 9 inch group and my second a 13 inch group. Net result, I can shoot the heavier 30-30 somewhat better than I can 22. Might be the shorter barrel on the Ruger, might be the heavier trigger pull on the Ruger. The Ruger trigger is smooth but heavier than it might be. Might also be after a couple of hours on the range I'm getting tired.
So, better luck next time. I still have two rifles, lying on the kitchen table, needing cleaning.