Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

NickC's Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Thanks for that great review! I've been waiting to hear one that cuts out all the Potter hype and focuses on the coaster elements, as that's what I've been most curious about. It still sounds like a fun addition, and I'm looking forward to trying it out myself this weekend.
  2. www.coasterclub.org/first-drop/ I'm not reading all into their page, but I would assume you'd have to join the club in order to read the magazine. Right, I found that page (and actually read it...) and the latest issue was published in November of 2015, hence my question: Does this magazine still exist? Or is this a bogus rumor attributed to a previously reliable source to make it seem more credible?
  3. Has anyone actually seen the article from this issue of First Drop magazine though? The ECC website, Facebook page and Twitter accounts all make no mention of a recent issue, and there doesn't seem to be any place to buy or subscribe to this magazine. Is it even still being produced/published? I really really want this to be true, but find it extremely odd that the quote seems to have originated from one user on Reddit attributing it to a magazine that no one else has seen or can verify even exists.
  4. Wow, that layout is nearly identical to Forbidden Journey, with the exception of the location of the maintenance bay and track going around the final dome screen carousel on the opposite side. They also only use four domes per carousel instead of FJ's six. I'd be really curious to see how that attraction operates. I'm assuming it's probably not a virtual omnimover like FJ, as based on that drawing it looks like they use both stations for stationary loading. Crazy. I hope some pictures or videos are out there somewhere.
  5. Oooh, interesting... I think that would be a pretty cool name for a coaster, and it fits in with the "mythical creatures" kick they seem to be on with GateKeeper and Rougarou. And I know it's typical for these trademark applications to include this, but I find it somewhat hilarious in this case that it includes "plush toys" (and other kid stuff) when a Valravn is described as: All the kids will want one!
  6. Looks like they confirmed the new coaster this morning at a sales meeting. Coming in 2016. More details will be announced in May. I feel like this is exactly what the park needs. Get the focus back on their attractions with a new world-class coaster, and a unique offering to the Central Florida market. Now the real question is if they'll stick with B&M or go with Intamin for this project. Either way, exciting times ahead!
  7. Florida Memory (http://www.floridamemory.com) has a decent archive of images if you do a search for Busch Gardens. Tons of pictures from around the park ranging from the 60s to the 90s. Here are a few of the brewery: (1960 - Source) (1960 - Source) (1977 - Source) (1977 - Source) I also had some free time this morning, so I used the aerial imagery available from the FDOT and threw together this little time lapse of the changes BGT went through between 1965 and 2014. Some of the older aerial imagery was a bit harder to line up, as it was taken via plane flyover, so the transitions aren't exactly perfect. But it gives you a nice overview of how the park changed at least: [youtu_be] [/youtu_be] The images were roughly 2900x2700px, so I rendered the video out in 4k (3840x2160). If you can, watch it in full screen on a desktop monitor with a resolution of at least 1080p. Alternatively, you can view the individual images from the video here: http://imgur.com/a/Bd4IG
  8. It is a bit unusual that they announced the project before getting FAA approval, especially with a structure this massive, but just because they got an initial "Notice of Presumed Hazard" letter from the FAA doesn't mean the project is dead in the water. For starters, pretty much any structure over 500 feet will automatically generate an initial "Notice of Presumed Hazard" letter. But this letter is just a notice, not a determination. The sponsor of the proposal has 60 days to counter the notice before the case will be terminated. From here, they'll likely request the FAA do a full aeronautical study, which will require them to prove the structure has a substantial adverse effect on the airspace. They can also request circularization, which would allow for other entities to comment on the proposal. These two things alone are typically enough to get a favorable determination. It looks like the proposal was filed in August 2014, with construction slated to begin in April 2015, so it's likely they filed early knowing there would be hurdles to cross. The other option is to terminate the existing proposal and re-file within the guidelines of the "Notice of Presumed Hazard" letter (in this case, it's the generic "keep the structure below 500 feet" guideline). If they don't respond within 60 days, the case will be automatically terminated and they will have to re-file regardless. But since this project is already designed and announced, I definitely don't see that happening. PS - I've linked some of the key phrases in this post to resources that explain in detail what I've attempted to summarize, so if this kind of thing interests you, you can do some further reading. Good to know the situation isn't as bad as that FAA document made it sound. Hopefully this doesn't cause too much of a delay, if any at all. Who says they have gone through the entire design process? All we have seen is some conceptual drawings and some animation. You would need these to sell the project. I'm sure all the engineering drawings haven't been done yet. Once they have all the approvals and have financing they will do the real work. Joshua Wallack, one of the owners of Mango's/Skyplex, has been doing some interviews with the local news stations lately. In one of the interviews, he mentions the track has already been ordered... so I'd imagine that means at least the coaster portion has been fully designed. Here's a link to the Orlando Sentinel interview: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/attractions/os-dewayne-bevil-tallest-roller-coaster-20150122-column.html And here's a video interview. Fast-forward to 11mins and 40sec to hear the segment where he talks about the coaster: [youtu_be] [/youtu_be]
  9. I assume that would mean it would no longer be the world's tallest coaster as I doubt the tower would be just 42 feet taller than the ride, right? I'd imagine so. The 700 foot figure is measured from ground level to the top of the spire on the roof of the observation deck. Since they said the proposed tower's "observation deck will offer views 535 feet from the ground", the coaster likely topped out at just about or over 500 feet. If they're forced to reduce the tower's height to 499 feet and want to keep the observation deck and spire, then it sounds like they'll have to massively re-design the coaster. They have 60 days to respond to the FAA notice, so let's hope it doesn't come to that!
  10. Well, the FAA has finished reviewing the application for this project, and it doesn't seem to bring very good news. The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height for the area by 201 feet, and would require all kinds of increases to the altitudes airplanes currently use to approach the two nearby airports. For those that want to see it, the FAA filing is here: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=225754250 Attached is a .pdf of the Notice issued by the FAA. Page 3 details the issues with the structure: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/letterViewer.jsp?letterID=240360374 Now, I know virtually nothing about FAA regulations, so I have no idea if it's even possible to increase the "Minimum Vectoring Altitude" like the document suggests, but the alternative seems to be decreasing the tower's height to 499 feet.
  11. Just for fun, I went on the FAA website to see if there was anything about this project, because a structure this tall would likely need FAA approval before being built. Sure enough, the project is currently listed as a "Work In Progress", so its at least made it far enough to be submitted to the FAA for approval. There are two applications for each of the 810 foot tall tower cranes that will be used to erect the structure, four applications for each building corner (North, South, East and West), plus one overall application listed as Skyplex Orlando. The construction timeline for the cranes to be onsite is 4/15/2015 - 10/1/2016, and the Skyplex structure itself will stand 700 feet tall, from ground to tip, if approved. South Tower Crane: Skyplex:
  12. I paid $14 to ride/get beat up by Manhattan Express, or whatever they're calling it these days, at New York, New York. So $20 for a ride like this wouldn't seem too crazy. Definitely expensive, but I could see the price point for a single ride being somewhere around there. It costs $9 for a single ride on the coasters at Fun Spot, so comparatively, you'd be getting a way longer/more intense experience for just over double the price.
  13. Some of my favorite shots from various Orlando attractions: Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit Hogwarts Express Mel's DIE-IN at HHN 21 ZombieGras Scarezone from across the lagoon at HHN XX Generic long exposure of a ferris wheel
  14. Yet another long time lurker here as well... I made that stupid "Coaster Safety" animation that was on the site several years ago, if anyone even remembers that, haha. But yeah, I think this is a great idea too. I would totally be down for spontaneous meet ups and stuff.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/