Leaderboard

May I suggest the great novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Whoever hasn't read it should pick-up a copy and study it. Needs to be required reading in our schools.

A go-around is usually needed because of something happening (botched landing, traffic conflict, windshear, etc), and adding partial power, trimming, and then changing configuration before going to rated takeoff power is a whole lot of steps (and time) when close to the ground. The objective is to get away from the ground before anything bad happens. All those steps seem to be a cover up for the improper technique for trimming in the flare. Trim it to your final speed, perhaps a bit more trim as you reduce power, and flare the plane. I have not flown a long-body, but in the M20J, trimming for 65 knots is about 3/4 up, and firewalling it does not produce any unusual stick forces to maintain normal flight. Another cool feature is the flap and trim motors run at the same speed and cancel each other out. Move the flaps, move the trim for the same period and the pitch forces are neutral. You guys saying a long-body does not do this?

While continuing to demonize Bush, and suggesting Reagan couldn't be elected as a conservative, do you really think these guys would be liberals today, flyboy: "I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 "Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people." ~ Thomas Jefferson "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ~ James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787 "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." ~ Patrick Henry "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~ George Washington "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 Wonderful ideals of personal freedom, democracy for all, and relief from ANY sniffling large government,or any one person who takes it upon himself to re-engineer society. Serious term limits, major tort reform, no more political favoritism tax code, and probably a modified form a representative government is needed. Let's pray the coming revolution is bloodless and non-violent, but I have my doubts. President Obama, the Democrats, and plenty of Republicans in Congress, would like it if you'd spend the even more time talking about gun control and illegal immigration That's because when you are, you're not talking about the country's financial situation. And, as the graph included here, taken from OMB budget data, illustrates, the situation is dire. Spending keeps going up. Revenues, however, are not. And, since we're borrowing the difference, President Obama has what Politico is calling a debt problem: "The staggering national debt — up about 60% from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama's record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush. Obama has long emphasized Bush's role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now." Chart showing federal government outlays and receipts from 1999 to 2012. (Photo: Reason Magazine) Well, things did start to go south under Bush. But look at that graph more closely. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those "two wars on the credit card" that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending. Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a "surprising" increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But -- look at the graph again -- everything changes in 2007. What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama's election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of "wars on the credit card," we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.) So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills). Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can't go on forever, won't. The United States can't go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won't. The only question is how things will stop -- smoothly or catastrophically. As we head into the next debt-ceiling debate, it's worth considering these words from a patriotic senator concerned with America's future: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006. I wish that guy was President now.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I wish it would have addressed what Bush's deficit would have been had the wars been on the books. Interesting that Clinton ranks number one and Reagan just under Obama. I guess this would be a good time for me to whip this cartoon out.

BUDGET DEFICITS AND HOW PRESIDENTS TRULY RANK. FORBES 7/11/2012 (Rich people magazine, so I figure they know a little about money issues!) James K. Glassman, Contributor, I write on the economy, personal investing, and public policy. Please forgive me. Over and over, I hear misinformation about deficits in prior administrations, and I can’t keep quiet any longer. I have to correct the record. The latest was on “Squawk Box” on Monday morning. Joe Kernan, the host, is interviewing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, ex-candidate for president and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kernen cites campaign comments about “bad policies” going back “decades” affecting the high rate of unemployment today. He asks, “What specific policies in the Bush Administration do you think are still being used to explain 8 percent unemployment?” Dean responds, “The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up…. The deficits were enormous Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?” We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run. I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents: Ronald Reagan 1981-88 4.2 % 1982-89 4.2 Average 4.2 George H. W. Bush 1989-92 4.0 1990-93 4.3 Average 4.2 Bill Clinton 1993-2000 0.8 1994-2001 0.1 Average 0.5 George W. Bush 2001-08 2.0 2002-09 3.4 Average 2.7 Barack Obama 2009-12* 9.1 2010-12 8.7 Average 8.9 *fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012 The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.) As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II. Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama. Sad part is that this does not settle anything.There are those who will come up with their own numbers and explanations to suit their agenda. Only time will tell and history will make liars out of one or the other, or both! WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Hate to say it, and I'm not the first, Reagan couldn't get elected as a conservative by today's definition.

agree 100%-this country needs real conservatism not Dems or Repubs spending on everything they can think of.

Obviously I meant Bush ran up the national debt to $10t, not the deficit and I stand corrected. However, it is still a fact that the wars were not counted in the deficit numbers between 2001 and 2010 and it would have exploded had they been included. As for smaller government, your statement is correct, but doesn't explain why during those same Bush years the size of government grew - at a time that Bush enjoyed having the GOP control of both houses. Let's face it, whomever is in power will spend like there's no tomorrow.

388 TFW, 34 TFS, 1972...how soon they forget

I don't have a love fest for Obama, but as I've said elsewhere on this board, I'm all about fairness. To me that means that I remind people of facts that are left out of an argument. While the debt is most certainly troublesome, I need to inform some here that one of the reasons that it has soared under Obama is because he actually fulfilled (much to his detriment) a campaign promise in 2008 to place the two wars into the general budget. G.W. Bush had it placed into an supplemental spending bill each year which did not find it's way into the general budget. Of course the deficit is going to soar when a few hundred billion suddenly finds its way into the mainstream numbers each year. Don't believe me? Google it. Now then, I wasn't on this board during the Bush years, but were you just as vocal about the deficit when Bush took the national debt from $3t in 2001 to $10t when he left office in January 2009, for a total of approximately $7t (give or take)? This country was founded on liberal ideas. A country with a constitution which gives it citizens the power to rule? A republic where a president is elected by the citizenry every few years and not governed by a monarch for a lifetime? Courts where the average citizen can take their claim? Due process? No state sponsored religion? Blasphemy! If you think it's liberals that are ruining the country, I suggest a good look in the mirror. And just for my own edification, MSNBC, NPR, Fox, et al, have been mentioned as outlets that have too much sway. What should I be listening to in order to become a more informed citizen?

Liberals just plain Suck, they are ruining our country. The constant attack on the economy by liberals is working. These attacks have existed for ages but are only now reaching the tipping point. There are becoming more takers than payers today. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Liberals feed on the carcass of business As they kill it. The ship is sinking, excess debt and spending fill the boat. The dam liberals answer is to bail more water INTO the boat. The liberals are so arrogant as to be unable to acknowledge any other way. Labeling all who disagree with their "religion" as uninformed and ignorant. Go to hell, go to North Korea, go to Venezuela, go anywhere just leave America so "we the people" can pick up the pieces. The only thing we are entitled to is the opportunity for a job, but when the liberals pull more and more money out of the economy the opportunity for work disappears.The only way to sustain an economy is to remove those parts that don't produce. To reward non productive actions is economic suicide. To bad rewarding the non productive is politically progressive. Political enough for you? The Republicans are too liberal today. They have found they must play the give away game to get elected. Pork is a killer. Most Americans are STUPID and cant see beyond their noses. If they weren't we would not be in the fix were in now. We decry the tax and spend but we vote for Uncle Sugar. We don't want what is good for the country or the economy. We want what feels good and we want it now. Real conservatism is tough love, liberalism is the drug that we are addicted to and will eventually die from.

Any good lawyer knows this fool didn't start drinking until after the crash

Maybe you can put a small flag in there?

I had also played around with the idea of letting the line go forward more after it left the transducer and then make a 180 in it and come back into the fuel servo body with a 90 on the end of the hose into the servo body.

Sorry Alex, you don't have to watch MSNBC to learn all the half truths, innuendoes and outright lies from Faux news, Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert do a good job in exposing them all the time. I just love their show. Fox News must be the only channel that has a weekly statement correcting all the reporting errors of the previous week. I plead guilty to throwing the bomb about the misinformed or as Limbaugh likes to insult all of those who don't agree with him the "low information voters". I normally don't get involved in these discussions but when HartParr said that "the uniformed left idealizes dictators" well that touched a nerve. And his comeback to my post that "the truth hurts" ... pathetic. Does he know me? Funny that you were more inclined to get involved by my Faux comment than by his original sweeping insult to those on the left. And what a pity because he read your post with the same attention than he read mine. All your valiant effort for nothing. He didn't even understand that you were on his side and not being sarcastic and accused you of babbling. A bad sign, he apparently gets angry before understanding what is written. In my defense I can only say that I might have been under the influence since I read the University of Maryland study that watching too much Fox news makes you ignorant (http://voices.yahoo.com/university-maryland-study-shows-watching-fox-news-7432098.html). I get the joke about the book and Prof. Bell, not very funny, something like Steve Doocy might say, or a forgotten half governor named...I've forgotten too.

DP -a-

Failed to recognize it as satire.......Let me be clear.......Chavez and every other socialist are garbage......

With apologies to our career military guys, one of which I used to be, as well as an aide-de-camp to a Major General, perfumed princes approved by Congress for promotion to Flag rank for the past two decades are now running the services. Unfortunately they are more PC and politically career motivated, then they are maverick warriors, IMHObservation. General officers are nominated for promotion by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the Senate. You can't get more "political" than that. The services hold in-service promotion boards to recommend officers for general officer promotion to the President. When vacancies occur (a general officer gets promoted or retires), the President nominates officers to be promoted from these lists (with advice from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the applicable service, and the Service Chief of Staff/Commandant). We are doomed...

It's discussions like this one that can have a tendency to cause some pilots to rationalize that it's OK to fudge a bit on the limitations published in the POH. Yes, there are safety margins built in to the various limitations for those occasional "ballistic overshoots" that we all experience from time to time and busting a speed by a few knots isn't going to cause catastrophic airframe failure. What those margins aren't designed to do is give you Carte Blanche to ignore the limitation. Let's face it, the Mooney has a reputation of being a bit slippery and anything to help you get it slowed down is a good thing. The factory sets those type of speed limitations a high as they possibly can, it makes the airplane easier to manage in the pattern. We can all have our various opinions on stuff like this, but the only opinion that matters is the one published in the POH.

You don't have a serious issue until you start forgetting to retract the gear

Haven't we all !!! Most of the time however is forgetting to retract them a condition quickly determined by failing to reach supersonic speed.

Hugo Chavez, a great leader and a man of the people. One who recognized the plight of the poor and did everything he could to level the playing field for all of his countrymen. He was selfless and giving during the 14 years he was able to publicly serve. It is too bad that he had to go so soon leaving so much of his great vision unfinished. He was able to make oil account for a little over 95% of the economy while managing to get rid of almost all other industry. He seized control nearly of everything that mattered, the military, congress, banking system and the media; hard to imagine why his well informed citizenry would ever consider voting against him. He inherited many problems from the previous administration, including a debt of 34 billion dollars, but thanks to his mighty leadership he was able to turn that debt into $150 billion showing that a determined and steady progress was being made. His out of the box thinking would have put this US congress to shame (if he would only get a fair coverage with our media). He had the courage tackle problems in a way that helped cut energy costs for those who needed relief, he brought rolling blackouts, shortages of basic goods and water rationing. Sadly he is now gone and the redistribution of wealth that he believed in and so wanted to bring about will now have to be put on hold. He rightfully believed (like some on this board) that capitalism was the way of the devil and exploitation.... Unfortunately, his death came so sudden and without warning that he had no chance to give away the fortune he acquired during his presidency, a net worth of over 1 billion dollars. There is no doubt that he had the best interest of his fellow Venezuelans in mind and it is a shame to see him go. May he now enjoy the warmth and the smell of sulfur he once mentioned while speaking to the united nations!

I agree with that statement however, I am happy that I have altitude hold as well as vertical guidance. I love hand flying to altitude, but once there, I enjoy engaging the AP and monitoring everything. This was my first small airplane that had an AP with such capabilities and once having it I sure would hate to do without it.