I Would Pay To See This Episode Of Antiques Roadshow: COTD

I have a few media guilty pleasures. One of them is that I spend several hours a week watching police chases to analyze where criminals mess up. Another is a fresher obsession with watching Antiques Roadshow. Anyway, what would happen if Jason Torchinsky ended up on the show?

Jason wrote a Cold Start about the weird Citroën 2CV painting that he made long ago. Bodnar:

Scene: ANTIQUES ROADSHOW – Charlotte, NC

[Appraiser examines the piece, turning it over carefully]

“Well, this is quite something. What we have here is a mixed-media panel painting, acrylic on wood, it appears executed in a deliberately archaizing style. The artist, signed here as ‘Torch,’ has done something genuinely clever. This is a modern annunciation painting, a genre with roots going back to the 13th century, but rendered in a thoroughly contemporary vernacular.

The iconographic program is immediately legible to anyone familiar with the tradition, your angelic messenger descending in divine light, your scroll-as-speech-balloon, your decorative border work mimicking manuscript illumination. Technically, the artist has done their homework. The stylized trees, the flattened perspective, the stiff expressionless faces, that’s not incompetence, that’s intentional medievalism.

Now, the twist, and this is where it gets fun, the Angel Gabriel has been replaced by the ghost of comedian Sam Kinison, who was tragically killed by a drunk driver in 1992, warning a man beside a Citroën 2CV not to drive drunk. The caption is rendered in Pig Latin rather than Church Latin, which I think shows a real wit.

Is it worth anything? In the current folk art and outsider art market, a piece this conceptually layered and technically accomplished – honestly, I’d put this somewhere between $800 and $1,400. But I suspect you’re not selling it.”

I wrote about the new Smart #2. Reader Grey alien in a beige sedan perfectly illustrates why Smart’s new “Hashtag” naming scheme is really dumb:

“The #2 looks a lot like the #1, but a #1 that spent too much time in the wash.”
–Mercedes Streeter

I don’t know about you, but my #1 looks NOTHING like my #2.

I also wrote about the latest version of the nutty double-decker plane seat. Expert Paul B chimed in:

Dude with 30+ years experience in airplane design here, including seats:

This will never happen. Reasons (other than passenger acceptance):

• Weight of the seats themselves. Seats must be rated to 16g. The second level will create a huge moment, requiring a structure that will be much heavier.
• No aircraft have seat tracks that can accomodate the loads of these things. Seat tracks are usually a primary structural element of an aircraft. Modifying them is a massive undertaking that could easily get into the 10’s of millions of dollars per aircraft model. They will also be heavier.
• The aircraft will need more emergency exits. Same impact as above about the seat tracks.
• The floor itself would have to be made stronger as they are designed with a passenger load. More weight.
• You will need more lavatories. More lavatories need a larger holding tank. Once again weight is added.
• Head impacts: most seats are designed so that the seat back can fold forward during a 16g event. This is to absorb energy of a passenger’s head hitting it, reducing the severity of injuries. Rigid seat backs exist, but the spacing is increased to avoid head impacts (think of the extra legroom if you get a bulkhead seat). This design would need airbags. Yes, once again, that pesky more weight issue.
• All this extra weight of structure, extra doors & lavs will add significant cost to the aircraft, easily in the millions per aircraft. A lavatory will run you about $100K, I’d guess a door about the same or more. An emergency exit slide is 20-50K each.

Now to the weight issue: Aircraft are rated to a maximum takeoff weight. The airlines can juggle the weight of passengers, weight of cargo/baggage or weight of fuel, but the 3 pieces must be less than the max weight.

We’ve added significant weight to the aircraft itself, much higher passenger weight, and more passengers means higher weight for baggage. This means less fuel capacity, reducing the aircraft’s operating range significantly. I’m not an aircraft performance guy, but I’d ballpark at least 30% less range, possibly much higher.

This concept always gets laughs at the office when it appears.

I love it when experts chime in. Have a great evening, everyone!