Miscellaneous desk
< July 17	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 18

Democrats

In the media recently has been multiple reports involving US President Donald Trump making derogatory comments in relation to a small group of ladies from the Democrat party, including references to them returning to different countries. What I would like to know is, what are the actions or comments made by this group of ladies that has caused this backlash from POTUS. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They think, they exist, and they have a different opinion from the Donald. And they allow him to play the race card to lock in the racist part of the voting public. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked a similar question a few weeks ago, and that didn't end well. Still, at least you have your answer now to the odd question of what Trump has said or done that is racist. --Viennese Waltz 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like blaming the victim. Just like anyone who is raped is accused of doing something wrong to have caused it. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is that they have done nothing at all, I can accept that happily. If however they released a statement saying X or championed a cause promoting Y, I would be curious to know what these are. I do not support Trump, I am not American. I am merely curious. Please try to answer the question objectively and in the tone it was asked as per the reference Desk guidelines. Thank you Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just read Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib. It's all there in those articles. Trump is a bigot, a racist, a narcissist and a bully, and anything those women say or do feeds into that. --Viennese Waltz 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waltz, I have read these, but I just don't see which of their many positions Trumps specifically wants us to see a un-American. Does he refuses to tell us which comment he particularly objects to? I guess Omar's 9/11 comment is sticking out, but the other 3 congresswomen haven't made that comment, so I am still confused.--Lgriot (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of Trump's stances is that illegal immigration is illegal. Those four women have repeatedly claimed that Trump is enforcing immigration laws ONLY because he is racist.^{[citation needed]} Regardless of why he is enforcing immigration laws, both sides have oversized egos with very small brains, so you end up with a very childish back and forth. Unfortunately, it is being done in public. 199.164.8.1 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalency "both sides" are not equal in this. Defending one's self and others against the bigoted statements and actions of others is not equivalent to being bigoted. --Jayron 32 20:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obama also enforced the immigration laws. He just didn't invoke racist hatred in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump doesn't just oppose illegal immigration, he opposes all immigration of "brown people", including the perfectly legal seeking of asylum. His "total shutdown of all Muslims entering the country" is another example. And Democrats also oppose "illegal immigration", but this means they want to make immigration legal (within certain limits, of course), including of "brown people". SinisterLefty (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of his 2016 campaign he characterized virtually all Latino illegals as street criminals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proximate cause was their criticism of conditions at migrant detention centers. This from the BBC explains it well enough - in the section - What is the row about? Starting "On Friday, Ms Ocasio-Cortez, Ms Tlaib and Ms Pressley testified to a House committee about conditions in a migrant detention centre they had visited..."John Z (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John Z, finally an answer to the question, instead of rambling. --Lgriot (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John Z, much appreciated. BTW to the others, please see: bigot, /ˈbɪɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was the wrong answer. There was no "proximate cause" for the racist tweets. Racism is simply what Trump does. --Viennese Waltz 15:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New DC-3s?

As everybody knows, the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3. Even today, people are rescuing old DC-3 airframes (more often than not of the C-47 variant), restoring them, putting new engines into them, and flying them - usually for scientific or touristic purposes, but I think at least one airline still uses them somewhere in Alaska for regular airline service.

I wonder: Is there a regulatory reason why these old airframes are used? In particular, would an identical new aircraft nowadays receive a certificate of airworthiness? Could we build a brand-new DC-3 today and if so, would it be allowed to fly? Or do these old aircraft rely on the original certificate from the time they were built? And could we build something similarly rugged and fixable, but with more of the modern conveniences? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I'm aware of with old airframe designs was sharp corners on windows leading to stress concentration and metal fatigue in the de Havilland Comet. As far as manufacturing, bad riveting also was a problem for that model. Once they fixed these issues, the improved designs were quite reliable, and some of the new technology, like composite materials liable to delamination, may be less reliable than these time-tested airframes. If they could manufacture them today, they would be even more reliable, if they could resist the temptation to make the material as thin as possible, to increase short-term profits. SinisterLefty (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, DC-3s are not pressurised, so they are not prone to the same problem as the Comet (where fatigue developed from repeated pressurisation/depressurisation cycles). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe pressurization is required to cause metal fatigue. Stresses build up at sharp corners from vibrations, flexing during turbulence, etc. So, rounded corners are much safer, no matter what. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's plenty of flying replicas of aircraft older than the DC-3. I think that generally grandfather rights can be used, but it may be necessary to make modifications to comply with modern safety regulations. As for building a replica DC-3, it'd probably be far cheaper to restore an existing aircraft to airworthy condition. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw your attention to the Basler BT-67: "a remanufactured and modified Douglas DC-3; the modifications designed to significantly extend the DC-3's serviceable lifetime. The conversion includes fitting the airframe with new Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67R turboprop engines, lengthening the fuselage, strengthening the airframe, upgrading the avionics, and making modifications to the wings' leading edges and wing tips".

According to this article, 'Basler focused especially on the need to replace cargo DC-3s then operated by FedEx across the Midwest from Oshkosh to Detroit to Cleveland. "He just couldn't find [an ideal DC-3 replacement] so he set down the path of redoing... That size has always been the dream of small-package people to feed their operations."... Designed in an era with little airport infrastructure, the DC-3 is able to deliver a large payload - 4,540kg (10,000lb) - to austere airfields. White notes that the DC-3 remains the largest commercial aircraft that can be equipped with skis for landing in the polar regions. Finally, the DC-3 is designed with a large wing area for its size, which is a critical feature in surveillance and mapping flights'.

Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Baseler is what I had in mind when I talked about "new engines" above - I should have been more specific. But, as far as I can find out from your linked article: Baseler still bases each of its airplanes on an existing DC-3/C-47 airframe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they say there are enough old ones about to keep them in production for the next 30 years. Alansplodge (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:Its like an Aero-Cockroach, once you hit on the perfect design for the intended purpose, it'll stick around forever. After the apocalypse there will only be cockroaches and DC-3s. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And styrofoam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, would an identical new aircraft nowadays receive a certificate of airworthiness? Could we build a brand-new DC-3 today and if so, would it be allowed to fly? Or do these old aircraft rely on the original certificate from the time they were built? And could we build something similarly rugged and fixable, but with more of the modern conveniences? Well, let me preface this by saying this can be construed as a request for legal advice, which I won't be providing. So if you're really interested in a project like this, you should probably contact a lawyer knowledgable in aerospace law in the relevant country. I've tried looking at the regulations and guidance provided by the US FAA, and got lost within seconds. You may find this guidebook (105 pages) to be a relevant introduction to the certification processes: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/media/CPI_guide.pdf I promise, however, just based on what I saw in the regulations, this is going to be a very abbreviated, simplified guide. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One minor addendum: you wouldn't be consulting a lawyer. You'd be consulting an engineer. This is an engineering evaluation, not a legal one. — Lomn 15:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly, note generally that airworthiness certification is not simply "what did you build" (a DC-3) but "how did you build it / how can you prove that you built it right". The latter is where "build a brand-new DC-3" (to say nothing of "and add modern conveniences") will call certification into question. New engines. New avionics. New electrical subsystem. New rivets (are they to proper environmental specs?). I can't say whether finding a vintage 1930s factory with everything time-period-appropriate would let you assemble a DC-3 and get certification, but I'm confident saying that you can't actually find that particular unicorn. Source: professional expertise, admittedly unvalidated. — Lomn 15:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A last alternate interpretation: if you instead mean "suppose a hypothetical new-from-scratch airplane which happens to be identical in every respect to a factory-fresh DC-3" — that airplane would likely not get certification for use as a Part 25 commercial transport aircraft. I can't imagine a DC-3 meets the modern requirements for (for example) catastrophic failures mitigated to 1x10^-9 per flight hour. However, it might qualify under other areas such as an experimental aircraft. — Lomn 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]