Disney Imagineering Testing Dragon

[PeoplemoverTTA]

I think/hope/expect that the "Forest" feel will be enhanced by finishing the Mine Train. Also,
over the years, the trees planted will grow. Disneyland's Fantasyland has a very nice "park" feel, with
lots of mature trees, so I think this will happen over time.

But if they block fireworks sight lines - watch out! They'll be gone in no time

 

[unkadug]

But if they block fireworks sight lines - watch out! They'll be gone in no time

So true

 

[GoofGoof]

I highly doubt this will be for MK because of the FAA no-fly restrictions over the park.

Those restrictions prohibit any aircraft from flying 3000 feet or lower in a 3 mile radius centered near the MK (the flight restrictions do not cover the entire WDW property, so it could still be for the other 3 parks)


The FAA regulation does allow Disney to apply for a waiver for its own aircraft for "operational" purposes. Not sure a flying dragon would be considered "operational". But even if it was, I imagine Disney flying aircraft in the zone would renew opposition to the restrictions and invite a review of its necessity (Disney lobbied for the flight restrictions after 9/11 under the guise of security, but they also acknowledge it keeps banner planes from flying over the park. Now that Disney has what it wanted, I doubt they'd invite new scrutiny over the questionable restrictions)

Not sure if it would be applied the same, but there is a similar regulation for sports stadiums during events. But, they will allow flights over stadiums by someone connected to the event sponsor directly. This allows for military fly overs after the national anthem and also things like the Goodyear blimp which fly over the stadium and take overhead shots. I would assume this would also apply to a Disney owned and operated aircraft. They would not allow commercial aircraft or private planes not affiliated with Disney but the dragon should be OK.

 

[JustInTime]

So. I am upset that Disneyland has a free flying Dumbo and Tink! Why can't we have that?

 

[RSoxNo1]

Easy to say after the fact. Is there one shred of evidence to back this up? If so ill gladly eat my words.

Look in the Lucas thread, I posted something that said that Jim Hill mentioned it on our October 5th live show. I posted that more than a week before the announcement.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Nope. Not a single word on here.

Posted on October 14th in the Hollywood Studios thread, referencing a conversation that was part of our live show on October 5th:

We had Jim Hill on last week (the show hasn't been released yet), and we discussed a Lucas Land possibility. Evidently the hold up is Disney trying to buy the intellectual property outright. It would allow for a lot more flexibility, as such they could leave the Echo Lake area alone for now and focus on other areas for enhancement knowing that a Lucas Land can stand the test of time.

 

[yoyoflamingo]

So. I am upset that Disneyland has a free flying Dumbo and Tink! Why can't we have that?

They are not exactly free flying. They are still on the rigging, just a little different, and in the case of Tink, a lot more impressive. They also have had Zero as well.

 

[Skyway]

there is a similar regulation for sports stadiums during events

Right. But the difference is that there's no question the no fly restrictions are for security reasons at a sporting event.

Disney's claim of security still seems questionable (especially considering the restrictions only cover 1 of 4 theme parks).

There's no question Disney CAN fly its own planes there. But it might renew the debate over whether the restrictions are still necessary, and could put Disney at risk of losing them if they no longer have the same political backing (one of the senators who pushed for it is now dead)

 

[JustInTime]

They are not exactly free flying. They are still on the rigging, just a little different, and in the case of Tink, a lot more impressive. They also have had Zero as well.

That is so amazing!

 

[GoofGoof]

Right. But the difference is that there's no question the no fly restrictions are for security reasons at a sporting event.

Disney's claim of security still seems questionable (especially considering the restrictions only cover 1 of 4 theme parks).

There's no question Disney CAN fly its own planes there. But it might renew the debate over whether the restrictions are still necessary, and could put Disney at risk of losing them if they no longer have the same political backing (one of the senators who pushed for it is now dead)

I think its Disneyland too in CA. Not sure why it's only MK at WDW. Seems like a pretty safe bet to restrict flights over any area with that many people, so i think it should really be extended to all 4 parks plus Universal. I know some people think it restricts their constitutional right to free speech by prohibiting flying planes with banners over the park (especially during a special spring event). I definitely think its justified to give up that right for the sake of safety. I still don't think this dragon thing would even apply. It's an unmanned flying machine that will likely be pretty close to the ground.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

I think its Disneyland too in CA. Not sure why it's only MK at WDW. Seems like a pretty safe bet to restrict flights over any area with that many people, so i think it should really be extended to all 4 parks plus Universal. I know some people think it restricts their constitutional right to free speech by prohibiting flying planes with banners over the park (especially during a special spring event). I definitely think its justified to give up that right for the sake of safety. I still don't think this dragon thing would even apply. It's an unmanned flying machine that will likely be pretty close to the ground.

It's unmanned? I thought a guy piloted it.
Huh...learn something new every day.

 

[danlb_2000]

It's unmanned? I thought a guy piloted it.
Huh...learn something new every day.

The patent shows a pilot, and I would assume the one being test in CA had one, although it's a little hard to tell from the pictures.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's unmanned? I thought a guy piloted it.
Huh...learn something new every day.

Learning anything from me is a bad idea. I really have no clue if its manned or not. It didnt look like a person was in it in the original pictures so I assumed. Guess I made an a$$ out of you and me. Some wise and all knowing person with copies of the plans will probably correct me if I'm wrong

 

[GoofGoof]

The patent shows a pilot, and I would assume the one being test in CA had one, although it's a little hard to tell from the pictures.

HaHa. You answered before I could even finish posting. Patent, plans, same difference. Hello, wise and all knowing person

 

[flynnibus]

There's no question Disney CAN fly its own planes there. But it might renew the debate over whether the restrictions are still necessary, and could put Disney at risk of losing them if they no longer have the same political backing (one of the senators who pushed for it is now dead)

It's just controlled space - not some super no-fly zone. @Scuttle tell the thread what they need to know about flying over the kingdom

 

[flynnibus]

It's an unmanned flying machine that will likely be pretty close to the ground.

It's not unmanned - it's a ultralight with lots of body stuff around it.

You can read more about the patents filed on the design here
http://www.google.com/patents/US201...nepage&q=flying entertainment vehicle&f=false

It's a ultralight with a parachute airfoil. But it has animation and effects as well.

 

[flynnibus]

The patent shows a pilot, and I would assume the one being test in CA had one, although it's a little hard to tell from the pictures.

Wave to Dragon Pilot Dude

He's facing you in this shot

 

[Computer Magic]

It's unmanned? I thought a guy piloted it.
Huh...learn something new every day.

How cool, maybe the military could replace their drones with these to fly over Iraq...

 

[Scuttle]

It's just controlled space - not some super no-fly zone. @Scuttle tell the thread what they need to know about flying over the kingdom

Well it's called a TFR (temporary flight restriction), but in this case since 9-11 it's more like a PFR (permanent flight restriction). You have to stay above 3,000 feet agl and outside a certain radius of the TFR center...... But air traffic control can clear you and you can fly right through the TFR and be well under 3,000 feet. I have had instances when I will request a fly through the TFR for pictures and ATC will clear me, but they will say "no loitering, get in and out quick". I haven't read the rest of the thread so I don't know what else you guys are trying to figure out? Can Disney fly their own aircraft in their TFR? I am sure if they talk to ATC.

 

[Scuttle]

I highly doubt this will be for MK because of the FAA no-fly restrictions over the park.

Those restrictions prohibit any aircraft from flying 3000 feet or lower in a 3 mile radius centered near the MK (the flight restrictions do not cover the entire WDW property, so it could still be for the other 3 parks)


The FAA regulation does allow Disney to apply for a waiver for its own aircraft for "operational" purposes. Not sure a flying dragon would be considered "operational". But even if it was, I imagine Disney flying aircraft in the zone would renew opposition to the restrictions and invite a review of its necessity (Disney lobbied for the flight restrictions after 9/11 under the guise of security, but they also acknowledge it keeps banner planes from flying over the park. Now that Disney has what it wanted, I doubt they'd invite new scrutiny over the questionable restrictions)

This is pretty much on the money, but I'll add one thing if this is not going to exceed 200 feet they can do whatever the hell they want. Oh and Epcot is included in the airspace, So only AK and DHS can you go below 3,000 agl without clearance, but Flynnibus is right there are many ways around the TFR. We aren't exactly flying over Area 51 here.