YES they need to get on that NOW.  Prison reform and drug law reform because they are closely tied.  We simply cannot continue incarcerating the numbers we are and call ourselves a free nation.  It's past the tipping point, because it's part of what's driving the left's rage, and on that point, they are entirely correct.  If we are seeing a large trickle of blacks walk away from the Democrat party, we could turn that into a Tsunami if we fixed this one thing.  Paul Butler I think is his name, a black prosecutor in D.C. wrote a book about this, and his solution is juries need to start nullifying like crazy when it comes to non-violent drug offenses.

Conservatives and Libertarians understand the concept of Jury Nullification and need to join with Butler and educate the black community, the Republicans need to take up this banner because the Democrats have left a vacuum there.

I’ll be honest, I do NOT get this prison reform  movement. It is not disputed they certain minority communities disproportionately commit the majority of violent crimes.  That those same communities also make up the disproportionate majority of the prison population.

People simply are not put into prison for being a drug user.  As for drug pushers, we have a horrible opioid crisis in Wisconsin.  In 2017, 883 people died of opioid overdoses, more than the number killed in car crashes. I would argue heroin dealers are not non-violent offenders.

In Wisconsin half the democrat challengers, including the primary winner, want to cut the prison population in half as a matter of policy. That’s about 12,000 inmates. However, 67% of all inmates have committed violent crimes, including murder, rape, assault, robbery, extortion, etc.  The remaining 1/3 includes drug dealers, white collar crimes, etc.   

It is mathematically impossible to do what the democrats want to do without releasing violent offenders onto our streets.

So how do we fix this perceived problem without making our streets much more dangerous? 

EAA is pushing it, and AOPA is taking credit for it.

The Sport Pilot concept was to give medically questionable pilots an ability to fly simple, light, day VFR sportplanes with 2 seats - it was also intended to overcome the issue with fat ultralights which were at best marginally safe.

Now they want to let them fly much heavier planes with potentially more seats, etc., I just think it's a bad idea.  Not that there is a substantial difference anymore on the medical front specifically with new Class III, but there are also some training and operational limitation differences between Sport Pilot and PPL and on.

I might just be the aviation equivalent of Clint Eastwood telling the kids to get off my lawn but I do feel pretty strongly this may be a mistake.

'Gimp

I hear you, but I think the 1,320# gross weight limit was ridiculous. As a 265 pounder, LSAs are a nonstarter for me. Plus, with that light weight, most people say they are a handful to land vs something heavier.

I understand the concept of kinetic energy, and a higher weight implies higher energy if you run into something, but a higher weight seems like a logical step. Perhaps they can limit a LSP to only one pax, regardless of the number of seats in an aircraft.

Doesn't “flying Ron” on PoA own one?

I haven’t been on POA or APPA forums for that matter in a long time, but I thought he had a Grumman Tiger.

Be safe! 

The mouth foaming alt left is ramping up violence ahead of the election.  And the MSM is covering it.  Something really ugly is getting ready to happen as dimms such as Waters, Booker, Clinton, and many more are calling for violence.  If this happens it will push many moderate dems either not to vote, or vote republican.

 The alt left progressives are convinced that any violence that happens can be pinned on Trump.  If you watch the MSM right now that's one of their lock step talking points.

 Like I keep saying, the day after this election is going to be an epic meltdown.

Sometime very soon - November 2018 or November 2020 - we will see Antifa start to swarm polling places, causing voters to decide that it’s not worth it to risk getting hurt just to vote. And when that happens, the police will not shut down these violent troublemakers, but will make sure that Antifa can continue their protests as long as they don’t get within 50’ of the polling place doors. And this will be declared by the MSM  “This is what democracy looks like”, ignoring the fact that voting percentages are down significantly in certain Republican precincts.

This is where we are going.

Just an ignorant question, but are there any legal restrictions regarding having military insignia on a civilian airplane?  I see that a lot and have wondered about it.

I doubt it given the number of RV’s with invasion stripes and stars and bars.

But the Navion was a Warbird before it went to the civilian market. It was a Liaison Aircraft and actually served as a FAC in Korea.

Never flew one, nor owned one.  Somewhere in the recesses of my mind I think I knew someone that had one many years ago.  It is built like a brick shipyard.  Very solid, and well made.  IIRC they are a bit slow for the HP, but don't quote me on that.  Not saying they are a slow plane, but maybe not as fast as some others with similar horsepower.  Lots of variants, and nuances, so as others have said a Navion expert would help.

Wouldn't buying into the SNJ give you enough plane, or is this in addition to that.  I'd take a T-6/SNJ any day, of course its a two place plane, however.

Oh absolutely, a T-6 will give me everything I need.  However, at 30 gal/hr, the 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp is a thirsty engine.  Everyone that I know has another plane to fly.  My mentor owns a Harvard, but also a deHavilland Chipmunk.  My AME owns a South African T-6, used to own a Stearman, but now owns a Thorpe and just purchased a Rose Parakeet.  (I’m not kidding.). A woman on the field own T-6, and also owns a Stearman and a Cessna 140.  She flies a 747 for work. 

So a Navion would be my “other plane”. 


Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!

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!