Skyplex Orlando Discussion Thread

[NickC]

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.

[Mrlittle]

^^ I would say they probably will do a similar pricing to High Roller in Las Vegas. Where the night time experience is more than the day time ticket. It's $25 for day and $35 for night on High Roller. I'm sure they will do a combo pass where you can ride the coaster and go up the tower. I kind of feel they may market it as a night club at night. Personally I could see the price from anywhere from $30 to $60+ a person. It's not like some of you havn't paid more for a kiddie credit.

[djcoastermark]

There was an article in todays' Tampa Bay Times that states that the new attractions along I-Drive are "expected" to charge $10 for the new Vue 360 (the 420 foot Star Flyer) to $20 for the Polarcoaster and Orlando Eye. I like that they said "expected" in their cost plans, as once construction actually begins and is completed, it will most likely be more, IMO. So yes, for now, it's anyone's guess. I do see all these attractions as having a multi-pass pricing plan in the future as well as single ride pricing.

[MrSum1_55]

As a Nevada resident, I can ride New York, New York for half the price. But, I would still much rather pay $20 for this than pay $7 for New York, New York.

 

And, if this has an unlimited rides pass, you bet that I am going to be buying that thing.

[larrygator]

Certainly sounds like a good time to implement dynamic pricing based on the demand hourly, daily or seasonally.

[zdub]

I like that we are seeing implementations of some of the elements found on RMC wood coasters, on a steel coaster. Such as the stall and outside banked turns.

[coasterfreak101]

^Didn't Alan Schilke from RMC design the layout for this thing? It's definitely very RMC-esque in some of the elements and shaping, so that would explain it.

[Mrlittle]

^Didn't Alan Schilke from RMC design the layout for this thing? It's definitely very RMC-esque in some of the elements and shaping, so that would explain it.

 

A quote from the IAAPA thread to answer your question.

 

robbalvey wrote: Alan's company - Ride Centerline, is doing the design for it. Alan has involvement with it, but I think Joe Draves is the actual guy doing a lot of the design. He's the guy who also designed Lightning Run.

 

It was also confirmed here in this thread. So yes, this coaster is in good hands.

[NickC]

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:

[coasterfreak101]

^Didn't Alan Schilke from RMC design the layout for this thing? It's definitely very RMC-esque in some of the elements and shaping, so that would explain it.

 

A quote from the IAAPA thread to answer your question.

 

robbalvey wrote: Alan's company - Ride Centerline, is doing the design for it. Alan has involvement with it, but I think Joe Draves is the actual guy doing a lot of the design. He's the guy who also designed Lightning Run.

 

It was also confirmed here in this thread. So yes, this coaster is in good hands.

 

Ah, thanks! Lightning Run has some funky transitions and that one curved airtime hill as well, so with the two of them on this project there was never a chance it wouldn't turn out awesome.

[Tornado6]

That ride looks awesome, but pricey. Still, this makes me want to go to Orlando.

 

P.S. Is this the first time a coaster needed FAA approval?

[COASTER FREAK 11]

That ride looks awesome, but pricey. Still, this makes me want to go to Orlando.

 

P.S. Is this the first time a coaster needed FAA approval?

 

Lots of coasters need FAA approval. Especially anything close to an airport. ANY Airport, no matter the size.

[KingRCT3]

I can confirm the layout has been designed by Joe Draves (instead of Schilke, though they're from the same company), as he stated on his personnal Facebook.

 

(hey, FB suggest me to add Joe as a friend, you know, in the "You might know..." heading )

[GCI Wooden]

P.S. Is this the first time a coaster needed FAA approval?

 

I know that at Valleyfair, there is the Flying Cloud airport really close by (You can actually see it from many of the rides), and I believe that Wild Thing had to be approved and that Power Tower was forced to be shorter (I believe that it was supposed to be 300 feet, but it's actually 275 feet) because of the nearby airport.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

[NickC]

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.

[BlahBlahson]

It's possible that they will be able to overcome it, but also there is a history of the FAA getting buildings "scaled back" in height and they've been on a kick of trying to get less large buildings near airports.

 

I don't really get the argument though. Laguardia is within 5 miles of Manhattan and functions. Mccarran in Vegas is 3 miles from the Stratosphere tower. Miami International is less than 5 from Miami downtown. This polarcoaster would be the only building over 500 feet tall anywhere near this airport, and it's still 9 miles away. Sounds like BS to me.

[Fooz]

I don't really get the argument though. Laguardia is within 5 miles of Manhattan and functions. Mccarran in Vegas is 3 miles from the Stratosphere tower. Miami International is less than 5 from Miami downtown. This polarcoaster would be the only building over 500 feet tall anywhere near this airport, and it's still 9 miles away. Sounds like BS to me.

 

I'd wager that the airport and local government could make it work, but it would require a lot of changes the operational guidelines, which could be rather costly. They'd rather not do it, and I imagine that the government sides with the air travel industry more readily than it would a private lot, who proposes breaking regulation.

[rcjp]

but the alternative seems to be decreasing the tower's height to 499 feet.

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?

[NickC]

but the alternative seems to be decreasing the tower's height to 499 feet.

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!

[Woodie Warrior]

This may be a dumb question but why would you go through the entire design process and make a big announcement without even knowing if you'd get permission to build it.

[Furion]

This may be a dumb question but why would you go through the entire design process and make a big announcement without even knowing if you'd get permission to build it.

 

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.

[SharkTums]

^To get excitement built up, support, and funding for the project you announced.

[loop-de-loop]

Well this sucks. Hopefully they can get over this hurdle, but if they have to redesign the entire thing lets hope the coaster layout is just as good.

 

I think I can hear Six Flags cheering though.

[gisco]

This may be a dumb question but why would you go through the entire design process and make a big announcement without even knowing if you'd get permission to build it.

 

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.

[NickC]

This may be a dumb question but why would you go through the entire design process and make a big announcement without even knowing if you'd get permission to build it.

 

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.

 

This may be a dumb question but why would you go through the entire design process and make a big announcement without even knowing if you'd get permission to build it.

 

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

This time next year we'll be looking up at the progress on the tower that the coaster's rail will wrap around, Wallack says.

 

"We've ordered the track. We've already placed orders for the coaster stuff that has long lead time," he says.

 

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]