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

Cedar Point (CP) Discussion Thread

p. 2030 - Top Thrill 2 announced!

Recommended Posts

In regards to some posters saying they would like to see black track at CP, I see your point, and do understand, but I have to say black track would look AWFUL once fading started! Its not cheap to repaint a coaster as to why it doesn't happen more often. Now, I'd love to see purple track. But black would end up being a huge mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the FAA said no to the height, Idk what happens now

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/WebBlobServlet

 

FYI - your link is dead. Was a new PDF attached to it?

 

Or are you talking about the letter today saying it wasn't approved for 230 FT but if it was 217 feet the FAA would not have an issue?

 

Pretty ridiculous response I guess...that 13 feet will cause a "hazard" to air navigation and a reduced height is required or "up to 120 days..." for another survey?

 

Well, with MF/TTD nearby there wouldn't be any "obstructions" and aircraft obviously wouldn't fly that low over it...

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/letterViewer.jsp?letterID=264356385

 

EDIT - to those conspiracy theorists....

**Does this mean we could see a 13 ft underground tunnel?!**

image.thumb.jpg.d3b70ef1da05f14582f9395583929448.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be the issue:

 

Section 77.17(a)(2) - A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is

 

higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport with its longest runway more

than 3,200 feet in actual length. The proposed structure would exceed by 13 feet.

 

Cedar Point listed their distance in their submission from the highest point to the intersection of the two runways at the airport, which is 19215.51 ft, or 3.16 nautical miles. The FAA determined the distance to be 17,907 ft, or 2.94 nm from the closest endpoint of either runway.

 

Oh, and in case you were wondering what the 3 nautical mile radius is from the point the FAA used:

 

 

And relative to the highest point of the coaster as shown by CP:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that came out of left field. I think everyone expected it to sail through. At this point with track in production, it would be very expensive to redesign it to be 13 ft. shorter. Reducing the height changes the speed throughout the course, which changes G forces as well. It would be far cheaper to run a public campaign to approve the coaster. Sounds like the FAA would approve it if the public pass it. Considering the entire town's economy depends on Cedar Point, it would be very likely approved by the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that the coaster was supposed to be announced almost a month ago, and I simply can't imagine them announcing, and putting into production, a coaster that wasn't completely approved yet, I have to think this isn't going to hold up whatever they have planned! Maybe the coaster IS only 217 feet, instead of the previously thought 230. Or maybe there is going to be a ravine after the drop in the middle of the marina entrance midway that the coaster drops 13 feet into. I just can't imagine CP being so presumptuous as to not get height clearance before getting into the manufacturing and announcement phase of the coaster.

 

All this to say nothing of the fact that CP has already gone WAY over 230 feet all over the peninsula, and I can't see the FAA suddenly caring about this particular location - especially involving a closed airport...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't expect there to be an issue. There is probably just some additional paperwork the park will have to file. They have 2 coaster nearby that are already over that height and there's not a problem with them, so I don't forsee a problem here.

 

Like I said I'm sure there is just a little more paperwork on Cedar Points part. . . That is... if that article is even real.

 

P.S. - 59 Minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed location is about 350 feet less than 3 nautical miles from the runway. WindSeeker is exactly 3 nm and Power Tower is 3.08 nm from the runway. The old Space Spiral tower was 400 feet closer to the runway, but was built before the FAA cared about the now-defunct little airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed location is about 350 feet less than 3 nautical miles from the runway. WindSeeker is exactly 3 nm and Power Tower is 3.08 nm from the runway. The old Space Spiral tower was 400 feet closer to the runway, but was built before the FAA cared about the now-defunct little airport.

 

Was just discussing this with people. I don't get how the 12 foot difference makes a big difference first off. Second off, how was everything still built with the airport still operating and then all of a sudden this with it defunct? And as for it posing an obstruction. When flying over areas such as this, a pilot is required to fly 500 feet above the TALLEST OBJECT in the area unless permission is given otherwise. So pilots will already be operating at over 920 feet over and near the peninsula. So I don't get why 230 would be a big deal.

 

At any rate, you have Wicked Twister (215) and WindSeeker (301) just across the way. Power Tower (250) and Top Thrill Dragster (420) not far away! And just a few hundred yards north, Millennium Force (310). Just blows my mind.

 

Shouldn't pose an issue. CP could either blow the money and lower it to 217 and see if a tunnel is possible to use the track still OR they can progress with the study and the FAA will, more than likely, approve the 230 height after awhile. But that may eat up some valuable construction time. Better hope that El Nino winter is true for us then so it can be finished no issue!!

 

EDIT: LiveStream Link here: http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/09/cedar_point_to_announce_new_co.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is highly unlikely, but maybe this has to do with the proposed "VR" technology used on the ride?

 

I really can't see any other reason for something like this to come out so close to the announcement. After all, as others have pointed out, this is nowhere near as high as their other coasters, and the closest airport to the park is shut down. Why would airspace be any issue?

 

The article did mention that "electromagnetic" interference could be an issue, so although I'm just taking stab in the dark, who knows; could this mean a "VR" system is confirmed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is highly unlikely, but maybe this has to do with the proposed "VR" technology used on the ride?

 

I really can't see any other reason for something like this to come out so close to the announcement. After all, as others have pointed out, this is nowhere near as high as their other coasters, and the closest airport to the park is shut down. Why would airspace be any issue?

 

The article did mention that "electromagnetic" interference could be an issue, so although I'm just taking stab in the dark, who knows; could this mean a "VR" system is confirmed?

 

I think you are looking WAY to far into this. I HIGHLY doubt that we will see a VR coming to this coaster... and even if we did, I highly doubt that putting VR headsets on a coaster would cause issues with the FAA... Then again I know nothing about FAA regulations so I could be wrong.

 

I still think this article is something someone dug up/made up to get people talking...

 

P.S. like 13 minutes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said I'm sure there is just a little more paperwork on Cedar Points part. . . That is... if that article is even real.

 

Oh I know....just had to let everyone know how ridiculous it was! Like others have noticed, the area depends on CP and the public will help get it passed.

 

Also...5 mins until the big reveal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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