Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
"That, but much stronger.

I, for one, love these things."

Thanks, Zachary. I'm happy for those who will enjoy this, but it's a pass for me. Pirate Ship rides make me nauseous. I do have to wonder what the parks expectation for this ride is. It seems to me that it will attract a rather narrow market, even more so than Mach Tower.
 
A couple thoughts after seeing it from a couple angles today. This thing is huge, much larger than I thought. It makes Kilarny look so tiny and it feels like a giant completely out of scale for its surroundings. Second thing I was thinking is I wonder how long before a giant net is installed just across from where the giant HOS pumpkin usually is. I thought the angle was more toward the trees untill I saw it today. Thats going to be a cellphone landing zone.
 
Giants and more Giants. Made the point many times about using Finn McCool and the Giant's Causeway.

But we got some guy Finnegan, who has a Flyer, you know to fly, or swing, as it were. And he's Irish, so that's why it's Finnegan's Flyer versus say... Frankie's or Fernande's Flyer. He's Irish since the country the ride is in is Ireland, or as the park knows it, "Eire."

In any event, Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh!
 
One good thing about the themeing... I don't see the Flyer moving around like our beloved Catapult...but it if did, just think about the possibilities!

The park could move it to San Marco or Festa, paint the orange half of the swing red, and viola... "Francesca's Flyer." The theme wouldn't have to change a bit! Also, since the painted brick work doesn't really match anything, it's equally usable in any hamlet. A few years later, paint over the green with blue, move it to Aquitaine, and you've got "La Fleur's Flyer." Oui oui!

You get the point... The Flyer's themeing is as creative as Le Catapult.
 
From Saturday.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5299a.JPG
    IMG_5299a.JPG
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5300a.JPG
    IMG_5300a.JPG
    548.6 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5310a.JPG
    IMG_5310a.JPG
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5311a.JPG
    IMG_5311a.JPG
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5312a.JPG
    IMG_5312a.JPG
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5313a.JPG
    IMG_5313a.JPG
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • IMG_5345a.JPG
    IMG_5345a.JPG
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
I did not know that BGW sent a painter to Utah to add those fake rocks. I assumed someone from Utah that had never actually seen the colors of the area did it.
My assumption too, as it was of others here.

No offense to the park's thematic painter, but they may have been better off letting Utah do it. Even if they were swayed a little too much by Utah sandstone, it may have turned out closer to the rest of Killarney's stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
My assumption too, as it was of others here.

No offense to the park's thematic painter, but they may have been better off letting Utah do it. Even if they were swayed a little too much by Utah sandstone, it may have turned out closer to the rest of Killarney's stone.
also, how is it that the panels are mismatched so badly with how high the stones go?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom
also, how is it that the panels are mismatched so badly with how high the stones go?
Actually looking at some of Alf's pics it appears that they are very even from some angles. I do agree they look quite uneven in some pics so I think we will have to wait till it's further along to judge the paint job effectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33
Given the mismatch I'm almost certain there will be on-site painting or at least touch-ups to come. It seems really sloppy to leave the mismatch in the final product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33 and Zachary
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad