Question to older members about Flying Turns

Now that Knoebels has officially started construction of their Flying Turns, I was wondering how big these rides were? I remember passing the former site of Whirlwind last year (where I think it's going. It's hard to tell anything from the construction pics) and it's not particularly a big area. From the few pictures on RCDB, they look rather compact--kind of like the footprint of a wild mouse, but it's hard to tell.

If I remember, the one at Chicago's Riverviewpark was quite compact. The curves were VERY tight and intense looking. *** Edited 1/30/2006 7:56:47 PM UTC by Peabody***

Find a copy of one of the Euclid Beach Park books(the ones by Bush, Chuckayne,Hershey et.al.). There are some excellent pics of theirs in them, and I recall that one of them shows the footprintn also.

^Yes, the footprint and blueprints are there.

I rode that when i was 6-7 years old. That thing was scarey. loved it.

Scroll down and you will see Riverview's Flying Turns

http://www.riverviewparkchicago.com/generic.html?pid=7

Yes, it's a relatively small footprint and it was one hell of a ride.

Mike

The one at Euclid Beach was compact but it was larger than a wild mouse. I think it stood about 70 feet tall, so there had to be room for a long lift hill. Here's a photo on eBay, the Flying Turns is on the left. This photo has 6 days left in the auction so the link should be around for at least six more days.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L13321E8C

*** Edited 1/30/2006 9:10:15 PM UTC by Jeffrey Seifert***

Euclid Beach's Flying Turns was nearly 90' tall, which was their tallest coaster.

It was also built by John Miller

Aerial view of Riverview's Flying Turns:

http://members.aol.com/wecorhsc/RV_turns2z.jpg

I saw somewhere that the plans were based on riverview's, but modified a little to make it a slightly longer ride. The whirlwind was on a small footrint, but that doesnt mean the FT couldn't extend into the walkway/street. It doesnt look as if they broke up any of the pavement in those pictures but then again you don't get a clear view.

A few interesting quotes from a recent discussion I had with Mr. Fetterman. I am sure he would not mind me sharing this.

The first quote confirms the changes we will see but he did not mention the length. He said:

"Like Twister, there will be changes, some subtle, and others more profound. The changes are made to add fun to areas which originally provided little fun."

Also:

"We are making changes to the original cars. The true paired tandem seating will see passengers pulled apart and seated individually, but still in a row. There will likely be an over-the-shoulder restraint. Without the ability to keep the arms inside the car, it may not be possible to create this ride today and meet ASTM standards for passenger envelope".

and finally:

"a park like Riverview with six wooden coasters, the Turns was the second most popular ride"

It was actually a Miller/Bartlet ride.The former built it, the latter designed it

Can I just say without my sexuality being questioned that I love John Fetterman?

Here's hoping they find some way to meet envelope standards without using OTSRs. OTSR and a wooden coaster, especially one with any kind of lateral g = ow ow ow ow.

Still excited though, can't wait to see the turns come back!

lol, Brian. Fetterman is awesome! :)

It'd probably be smooth enough to not cause headbanging. At least I assume so. The turns would seem to be more swooping and not lateral crazy like you find in many helicies.

Once off the main [second] lift expect a ride time of under 60 seconds.

Here is what John Fetterman, the man responsible for bringing this ride from blueprint to reality, said recently in a post on RRC. It was a response to a post by DAFE's Rick Davies:

Dear Rick,
While the fact is that two of the Euclid Beach Park [EBP] rides could have fit into the Whirlwind spot (with a little overflow), the Riverview version we are building will appear to completely fill the plot. I don't want you to look silly to others, based on my say-so, so I wish to provide you with some ammo in case this apparent anomaly is called into question.

Consider the business end of the ride - the twisty trough. That part is physically very small. On the EPB ride, most of the footprint was taken up by the twisty trough. On the KG and Riverview (and Coney version), there is an additional lift prior to the twisty track. I have chosen to beef up this section in an effort to lengthen the ride and provide an increase in perceived value for our patrons.

Also, I sensed a defiency in the work area of both the original EBP and Riverview rides. The Riverview ride had a service area which was tucked in under other structure, but was designed for only the three car trains that were used at the Chicago Worlds Fair. The EBP service area was the second, unused track through the station. We will have three trains for KFT, and I wanted to be able to address them in and out of the work area in parallel, rather than serially as Bartlett's
designs commanded.

The enhanced pre-twisty section and enhanced work area dovetail with land which would have been worthless once we built the first Turns ride. Also, while I could see the need for a pair of EBP Turns rides - low capacity here - there's a need for only a single RFT ride, because of the ability to send 10 passenger trains. I did not need to preserve real estate for the second ride, and have not done so.

This is all to better explain the circumstances to you and to equip you with additional facts should a Savage Of The Internet take you to task once it becomes apparent that the ride we are building would not allow enough room for a second copy.

John Fetterman
Knoebels Groves

The entire discussion can be seen here:

http://tinyurl.com/7peol