I’ve been wanting my own aircraft for a long time.  It’s taken me a while to define my mission, and I’ve gone from a go-somewhere aircraft (even though as a renter the farthest I’ve gone is about 300nm) to a Warbird such as a T-6.

However, the best deal in the world to get into a Warbird is the CAF.  I already fly a CAF Fairchild PT-26, and am building my hours to get into our SNJ next spring/summer. The cost of getting into the SNJ is a ridiculously low $3,500 sponsor fee, plus an hourly rate and share of fixed costs split among about 5 active pilots. It would be foolish to buy a $150,000 T-6 and $15,000 in fixed annual costs when I have access to the CAF.

However, I think I’ve found a potential solution in a Navion, preferably one painted in military livery and with a larger engine, I.e. 260 or 300 hp Continental. It would be a stout go-somewhere plane, but also a fun aircraft to fly for $100 hamburgers.

They were built by North American (maker of the T-6, B-25, P-51) after the war and before North American began production of the F-86 Sabre, and then were subsequently licensed and built by Ryan. Great lineage.

I’m going to get a flight in one this month from someone in our wing who just got one, but does anyone here at PS have any experience or knowledge of owning and operating a Navion? 

Pros and cons are welcome! 

A salient and sober addition to our thoughts and discussion about slavery. 

If this ignorant child actually knew what a Republic was, she would see she is the dullest knife in the drawer.

Just blew your chance at ever serving on the Supreme Court.............

I know. I like beer, farting, sports and women. That’s so 20th Century. 

My personal belief is the two do not equate.  If you start doing that for every little group that feels discriminated against for anything, where do you end up?  We're the cake seekers barred from entering and purchasing from every bakery?  I think not. Where do you see the government not imposing itself?  What if I go into a bar and ask for a Coors and they say we don't serve that here, can I sue because they didn't have the beer I wanted?

Doh!  You had me until Coors. Good God, man, at least sue for Guinness!

This reply was a couple of weeks ago, but I've been away, so...

My only disagreement is that the right to vote is a long way from a seat on the SCOTUS. There is also the "image" of the court to be considered. This is not about Kavanaugh personally, it's about the prestige and respect most of the country seems to expect the court and the justices to be worthy of. If there had been real, corroborated evidence against him, I think there would have been enough Republican nays to deny him confirmation. And that would probably have been a good outcome for the country, in the long run... IF that evidence had been found.

I'm okay with how it turned out. I only hope Kavanaugh turns out to be more impartial and less partisan than some of his comments during the hearings implied he might be.

Kavanaugh was completely impartial and non-partisan during the hearings. Those ended 3 weeks ago.

In the Trotskyite show trial two weeks ago, where he was accused of attempted rape, rape, rape rooms, indecent exposure, and other filthy and pathetic, completely unsubstantiated claims, he was fighting with the ferocity of a man fighting for his reputation, his girls, his wife, and his career. He fought as an innocent man should fight, with passion and anger, and partisanship where necessary, and it was extremely necessary.

To have democrats then claim that he didn’t have the temperament for the bench is as pathetic and low-life as the Menendez brothers appealing for leniency because they are orphans, notwithstanding that these filthy pieces of shit murdered their own parents with a shotgun.

Upon reconsideration, I agree that the common element is Liberty. I still have a tough time likening it to the literal owning of people. The fact is, the scenario in question is not slavery as people understand the term. And I think it does a disservice to the cause to jump immediately to that extreme. I think there is a good, Libertarian argument to be made against anti-discrimination laws, but that argument doesn't begin by calling it the same as slavery.

In post 11 I wrote the entire text of the 13th Amendment.  In that language, involuntary servitude is placed in the same position as slavery.  I agree that what we are talking about isn’t the same as owning another human being, but I think you’ve been dwelling on the wrong thing to make others look foolish.

Do you not agree that involuntary servitude much more accurately applies to this and related cases?