General Carowinds discussion
#87119
gabed wrote:If B&M (or anyone really) could develop a comfortable, reliable strata within the 10 - 15 million dollar price range . . .

Image
#87131
coasterbruh wrote:
gabed wrote:If B&M (or anyone really) could develop a comfortable, reliable strata within the 10 - 15 million dollar price range . . .

Image


Hence why it will never happen. :wink:
#87134
Speaking of new gigas, other than Kings Island, are there any other parks that actually have a shot at getting one? Since you know, Six Flags can't bear the thought of spending more than $5 on additions.
#87135
The current coasters over 400' are gimmicks. While they served a purpose, parks aren't clamoring to build them because they're expensive and the ones built have been major headaches.

Will we see 400' or taller coasters with 400'+ drops built again? Probably. But a park has to be in a position to get a return in a $30million or more investment. It's an aberration that it happened so closely the last time. And with Cedar Fair trying to get parks where they need to be, we've seen 3 gigas in just a few years.

But there simply aren't a lot of parks that have the land or the ability to afford rides like that. Well, in the US. I'd say we will see China add them at some point.
#87138
gabed wrote:Speaking of new gigas, other than Kings Island, are there any other parks that actually have a shot at getting one? Since you know, Six Flags can't bear the thought of spending more than $5 on additions.


Correct me if I'm wrong, I think 6flags does that because they spread the love across all of their parks no matter what the numbers are. Cedar Fair distrubutes to 3-4 parks a year.

As for seeing a strata at Carowinds, I personally doubt it however I'd never put anything past Carowinds. Anything can happen, however I do remember seeing a documentary at Cedar Point where the Question was ask, "which expansion was the most regrettable and the one they wish they never did?" With no hesitation the CEO and the dude in charge of ride placements and future expansions both said TTD.
#87139
shane235 wrote:I'd be more happy with an Xcelerator or Stealth sized launch coaster if it had a ride after the initial launch, spike, and drop than a strata like TTD.


An 200 ft I-speed style ride but longer with more inversions maybe? :?
#87148
Due to the close proximity of Charlotte/Meck airport, it's highly unlikely that carowinds will receive a strata coaster, unless Cedar Fair can sweet talk them. the only reason Fury was built is because Skytower (including the flagpole) is taller than Fury.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
#87149
I don't think you can ever say anything definitively on that sort of thing. Regulations are always changing and so are flight patterns. There's plenty of precedent for much taller structures closer to airports, even in the United States. I just flew into Love Field in Dallas last month and the runway is less than 3 miles from downtown. You basically fly through the downtown to get to it. Yet Dallas has 28 buildings over 400 feet tall and 11 over 600 feet tall.

Even here in New York, LaGuardia is closer to Midtown Manhattan than Charlotte Douglas is to Carowinds. Yet a 1,400 foot tall skyscraper was just built.

I don't see the airport as a real deal breaker. An extra regulatory hurdle? Probably. But I'm sure if Carowinds really wanted to go higher than the Skytower they could get it done.
#87154
Hey Jonathan - thanks for your input on that because I've heard that airport issue before, for years. Anyway, I remember someone saying that there is a height limit at SFoG and that's why they don't have anything over 200 ft...Does anyone know if that's true, and if so..why? A bit off topic, sorry.
#87155
FamousAmos wrote:Due to the close proximity of Charlotte/Meck airport, it's highly unlikely that carowinds will receive a strata coaster, unless Cedar Fair can sweet talk them. the only reason Fury was built is because Skytower (including the flagpole) is taller than Fury.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.

That is what Carowinds officials said.
#87157
I don't think the investment would be worth the return. Someone mentioned a 100 foot hole... now THAT would cost a penny or two. I doubt Carowinds would even want to fight any airport regulations unless we're talking millions upon millions of dollars return on the investment. I just don't see it.

Now, if there is a mountain park that could use the contour of the land to get to 400 feet... or a cliff to "drop" over. I could see that. It's just too expensive to build and maintain.

(I would love to see something with a true tunnel at Carowinds though. That would be fun. Something like HADES at Mt. Olympus would be VERY cool!!!)
#87159
The northern edge of Carowinds is around 5.7 nautical miles (34,800 feet) from the southern edge of the nearest runway. In a recent (early last year) similar issue, the FAA recommended cutting some building proposals in the Miami airport flight path down from 1,000 feet to around 470 feet because the buildings were 5.7 miles (5 nautical miles) from the runway.

The federal code seems to suggest that anything under 499 feet would be allowable at Carowinds without needing a waiver. A simplified presentation of the regulations can be found here.

Objects are considered obstructions at the following heights (above ground level or above airport level, whichever is higher; in this case, Carowinds is at an elevation lower than the airport):
Within 3 nautical miles: 200 feet
3-4 nautical miles: 300 feet
4-5 nautical miles: 400 feet
Above 5 nautical miles: 499 feet

This is not to say that I think Carowinds will build a 400 foot tall coaster (I don't, at least not anytime soon), but I don't see how the FAA is an overwhelming barrier.

Anyway, I remember someone saying that there is a height limit at SFoG and that's why they don't have anything over 200 ft...Does anyone know if that's true, and if so..why? A bit off topic, sorry.

SFoG is around a mile from the end of the runway at Fulton County Airport, so anything over 200 feet there would be considered an obstruction and would have to be approved by the FAA.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7