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

Skyplex Orlando Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 885
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know if the ticket price has been discussed, but how much would you be willing to pay for a ride?

 

Personally, I could pay $40-50 if it included FOTL. Or $80-100 for a combination of the coaster, the starflyer and the Eye.

If I would have to wait in line, $20 for the coaster seems fair.

 

I would see this as a once in a lifetime experience, and be willing to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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
 Share

  • 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/