Intamin's X

^^If only there were more batman:TR clones!
(Is a BTR really so much more expensive than an SLC?)

And if only B&M or Intamin were asked by a park to do an actual 4D but smooth this time!

Seems like Furius Baco could have been it at some point.

---

TayTay said:
I hate to sound like I'm just repeating what Jeff says, but they're not popular because they're just a gimmick. I totally agree with him on that since I rode Firehawk. Granted, I haven't ridden a B&M one, but on Firehawk the only times I really felt like I was on a flying coaster were the first drop and the loop.

---

Are you kidding me? They are not popular. Go on Superman Ultimate Flight at the parks it's at. In 2003, the ride came into SFGAm, and that ride to this day, the ride still gets an hour and half lines on packed days. You have to be joking. It's not popular with enthusiasts, but not the gp.

There are less flying coasters because they are a newer concept. The first BTR came out in 1992 whereas Air came out in 2002. What do you expect? In 10 years, expect more flying coasters. That's if parks continue to spend the money on higher priced coasters.

X's gimmick is why it gets the crowd it gets. If it weren't for those turning seats, and it was just another sitdown ride, I really doubt that many people would go on it as they do now.

Yeah, I thought Furious Baco was Intamin's X. That other thing is their Ball Coaster

The argument was that B&M flying coasters don't seem to be popular with parks, not necessarily with those who visit those parks.

The first B&M flying coaster opened in 2002. They've built just five of them since. By contrast, B&M built a whopping fifteen inverted coasters - more than twice as many as the flying coasters - in the five years after their first appearance.

Whether it's because they're a gimmick or because they don't get the turnstyles moving, they haven't been a particularly popular purchase.

And by the way, which coaster at SFGAm doesn't still draw hour-and-a-half-long lines?

-Nate
*** Edited 7/11/2007 2:05:01 PM UTC by coasterdude318***

The market has vastly changed.

When B&M's inverted coasters were popular we were in a time when almost every major park chain in the U.S. was building coasters like crazy. I'd say in the current climate B&M selling 5 flying coasters since 2002 is actually a pretty solid number.

You can't just compare # of flying coasters being built 2002 - 2007 to # of inverted coasters being build 1992 - 1997 and have that be your only consideration, there's a lot more to it than that. *** Edited 7/11/2007 2:11:58 PM UTC by matt.***

Sure, I think that's a given. But the real coaster boom wasn't in the early 90's, it was the late 90's and early 2000's.

Look at who bought all of those inverted coasters in the early 90's. It was mostly Six Flags parks, Busch parks, and Cedar Point.

Six Flags has purchased four of the flying coasters, which is beyond reasonable considering their financial state. Alton Towers built the first. That basically accounts for all of them. Cedar Fair has turned to Intamin (Maverick) or other B&M products (Hydra, Patriot) for their new purchases. Busch has gone for the dive machines or water coasters.

Yes, there are several factors behind why the flying coasters aren't selling like the inverted coasters were. But you can't ignore the fact that beyond Six Flags, nobody has even shown an interest in purchasing them.

-Nate

^ Except for that one you're missing, Nate -- that one that was built at that Chinese park and opened last year.

Of course, it's basically a clone of SUF, but hey, they actually sold one to someone other than SF.

I didn't forget the one in China, I just didn't find it necessary to dwell on or significant to the discussion. One random park in China bought a flying coasters, just like a few random overseas parks bought inverted coasters. It doesn't change the basis of my argument; most of the chains that were buying inverted coasters left and right have not been purchasing flying coasters (and it's not because they haven't been buying coasters).

But you're right that my post should have said that other than Six Flags, virtually nobody has shown any interest in the flying coasters. :)

-Nate

Wow, so how 'bout that Intamin ball coaster!

I think it looks pretty neat.

---

coasterdude318 said:
But you're right that my post should have said that other than Six Flags, virtually nobody has shown any interest in the flying coasters. :)

---

Still, though, looking at the market, B&M according to RCDB only has 4 projects on the table opening in 2007 anyway. I mean it's still a good work load I'm assuming but if you consider what parks would be most likely to buy a B&M flyer it makes perfect sense to me.

The number one thing a flying coaster buys your park is variety, it is indeed a "gimmick" and whether you use that with the negative or positive connotation is up to you. But it only really makes sense to me to build a flyer when you park already has the staples like a couple of wooden coasters, an inverted coaster, a standard looper or floorless, a hyper coaster, etc to avoid redundancy.

So still, I just think it's not a problem with the product, per se, it's just that it had a very limited market from the very beginning - i.e. the SFMM's and SFGAdv's of the word that already had just about everything else. And when Six Flags drops out of the coaster building business that takes a huge chunk out of an already small market.

So without Six Flags as far as a major coaster building player, that leaves CF, which up until a few years ago was one BIG FAT park where it would make sense to drop that kind of cash and a bunch of smaller parks where maybe it wouldn't have. So now that they have the Paramount Parks it will be interesting to see if they bite. I'm guessing they won't but who knows? Maybe someone will decide a flyer here or there would make sense eventually.

I'm rambling a bit here but I think the main reason B&M hasn't sold a lot of flyers, in summary is there was just never a big market for them to begin with. At least not like there is/was for hypercoasters and inverted coasters. Not a problem with the product, just the way the market works at the moment.

Oh, I completely agree. I don't think the flying coaster is in any way a "bad" or "unsuccessful" product. In fact, I argued its superiority over the Vekoma counterpart above. There just aren't a whole lot of parks that would have interest in them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because I think B&M needed to diversify their lineup in order to keep selling rides, but the flying coaster hasn't exactly been an amazing seller.

The interesting thing to consider is why the inverted coaster became a "staple" of the medium and large park while other rides (such as the flying coaster) haven't. I completely agree that the parks building flying coasters are those that already have such staples as a wooden coaster, looping coaster, inverted coaster, and even hypercoaster. But why are these staples while the flying coaster isn't? Just something to consider. :)

But again, I do agree with your main point. It's not that the flying coaster concept is broken or flawed, but that for whatever reason there just isn't a huge market for them.

-Nate

I still would like to see what B&M would do with the Arrow 4th dimension concept. Imaging the smoothness--and reliability! :)

While the dive machines are an interesting idea, they honestly don't do a whole lot for me. I wish B&M would work on something more interesting. I do, however, like their take on the flying coaster. They make Vekoma's look like a cheap immitation, though Vekoma was actually first in this case.

And yes, I agree with you, Nate, as well. Perhaps it has something to do with appealing to a larger audience. Parks may figure that, if they're going to spend that much money, that they should invest in a B&M invert or floorless, since they have a wider appeal and would be considered more of a "staple" than a flying coaster.

Kirnu is not the only one there is also Inferno at Terra Mitica but its exactly the same. These are prototypes, there are more complicated layouts floating around the interweb but they still don't have any horizontal turns. Im not sure whats up with the layouts not having any horizontal turns to them, these prototypes must have limited wheel assemblies.

I think they look fun but it would be really cool if they had a LIM/LSM launch. Kinda of like a Wicked Twister that had a complete circuit and shorter trains.

I'd expect to see more of these in the following years. *** Edited 7/11/2007 9:34:20 PM UTC by realmadrid311***

Okay, free spinning+launch=puke?
Yeah. . . no.
I could see ones with horizontal turns. I mean, they'd have to be really wide/smooth, but they could do it.

Looks gimmicky to me. I'd ride it once if the line wasn't too long.

^^Not exactly free-spinning, but launching on the Intamin half-pipe when you're facing sideways = queasiness.

---

coasterdude318 said:The interesting thing to consider is why the inverted coaster became a "staple" of the medium and large park while other rides (such as the flying coaster) haven't. I completely agree that the parks building flying coasters are those that already have such staples as a wooden coaster, looping coaster, inverted coaster, and even hypercoaster. But why are these staples while the flying coaster isn't?

---

Where's the thread where I listed the variant definitions of the word "gimmick" again? Honestly, the inverted concept was a real ride-changer...an enhancement by almost everyone's opinion. Stand-ups and flyers, for me and apparently MANY others it seems, are seen under the less-flattering definition of gimmickry...

edit: unlike dex, I'd wait QUITE awhile to ride it once....if it was any good (and it DOES look fun), maybe twice. But given the capacity, it would probably turn about to be another Vu for me, something where the ride experience isn't justified by the excessive waits.

*** Edited 7/12/2007 4:21:16 AM UTC by rollergator***

Tatsu currently ranks a pretty solid #34 on Mitch's steel coaster poll, though. So obviously if enthusiasts really are wanting to put flyers into the negative connotation it looks like a solid, creative layout can certainly overcome a lot of that.

But I think more so than the "gimmick" thing, the layout is really the problem. One of the first steps in building a flyer is figuring out where all of those lengthy, drawn out transitions are going to fit into your chosen site, and you have to have those if you're traveling at any speed at all. That means more track, that means more money, and maybe most importantly that means making a quality layout on a flyer may take a lot more space than your typical inverted coaster.

That's why Tatsu is so brilliant to me. SFMM was one of those few parks with the money, the terrain, and the space to really let a flyer stretch out and do the things everybody thought they should do the second we all saw the concept.

But then...of course that goes back to there's only a few sorts of parks that *could* do that sort of thing and ever fewer who would want to. But still I'm betting the B&M flyer is not done by any means. And someone will top Tatsu, maybe not in the US, but someone. *** Edited 7/12/2007 12:46:43 PM UTC by matt.***

---

matt. said:

That's why Tatsu is so brilliant to me. SFMM was one of those few parks with the money, the terrain, and the space to really let a flyer stretch out and do the things everybody thought they should do the second we all saw the concept.

---

Agreed....I've always been vastly underwhelmed by flyers, but Tatsu was a definate exception.

---

And by the way, which coaster at SFGAm doesn't still draw hour-and-a-half-long lines?

---

I don't know if you are kidding, but Ragin Cajun, Deja Vu, Raging Bull, and Superman are the only ones that really do. Maybe, Batman during Fright Fest. The rest don't. Iron Wolf, Demon, Spacely's, and American Eagle are the least packed.