News Guardians of the Galaxy Cosmic Rewind attraction confirmed for Epcot

[Incomudro]

Why don’t you explain to us how things that already exist ignore Newton’s Laws? How did Kittinger Park in Orlando get around Newton?

We've been through that, those are real aircraft.
Aluminum, honeycomb construction...
They're designed to be as light as possible, likely gutted and reinforced when put on display.
This is a purpose built outdoor prop of a craft that doesn't exist, likely couldn't exist, and couldn't fly.
The support structure it's on doesn't look any more ungainly than the ship itself.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We've been through that, those are real aircraft.
Aluminum, honeycomb construction...
They're designed to be as light as possible, likely gutted and reinforced when put on display.
This is a purpose built outdoor prop of a craft that doesn't exist, likely couldn't exist, and couldn't fly.
The support structure it's on doesn't look any more ungainly than the ship itself.

Because it doesn’t hold up. Old aircraft are not made of composites and still have an overall weight measured in tons. Adding reinforcement has its own weight that also has to be supported. This prop isn’t solid, it’s built with steel pipe.

 

[mergatroid]

Like the massive pole sticking out under the Skrewt?

-Rob

That's so much worse as it's supposed to be an actual part of the ride unlike this which is a pre ride display piece. I've got to say this looks a lot better now its got a covering, I'd go as far as to say it looks really cool. I know some hate it but it's all subjective, no point arguing as whatever they do somebody will dislike it.

 

[sedati]

The wind loads on this thing has to be different than a standard aircraft. The ship has large profiles along both X, Y, and Z axis.

 

[UNCgolf]

You don't think they didn't think about that?

Where did I say that?

I'm sure they considered it and decided this would be easier (or more importantly, cheaper) than doing something befitting that wouldn't block out part of the ship from the main viewing position.

It's not terrible, but it could be a lot better.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The wind loads on this thing has to be different than a standard aircraft. The ship has large profiles along both X, Y, and Z axis.

This was already addressed by a structural engineer who practices in Florida.

It literally does not matter. When designing a support like this you have to account for wind coming from every direction.

While wind will more commonly come from a more lateral direction, there are a myriad of common circumstances that can cause it to move in any direction imaginable. A common summer thunderstorm produces microbursts that blow nearly straight down followed by nearly straight up once they hit the ground.

The bottom line is the stresses on this stand are not all that different from the ones previously pictured all through this thread.

 

[larryz]

Don't know why they didn't synergize... they could have done this:

 

[Incomudro]

Because it doesn’t hold up. Old aircraft are not made of composites and still have an overall weight measured in tons. Adding reinforcement has its own weight that also has to be supported. This prop isn’t solid, it’s built with steel pipe.

I guarantee you that this weighs more for its size than any aircraft.
And yes, structural reinforcements for actual aircraft add to weight - that's why I mentioned it.

 

[Piebald]

Did they confirm no AAs ? Seems like a wasted opportunity. Even the Rocket in DCA in the preshow is quite impressive even if it's just in the preshow.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I guarantee you that this weighs more for its size than any aircraft.
And yes, structural reinforcements for actual aircraft add to weight - that's why I mentioned it.

What do you think this thing is made out of? It’s not solid. It’s not thick steel plates. Why couldn’t they use an overall smaller shape with thicker steel for the support? Why couldn’t they use pipe like is used in the prop itself?

 

[sedati]

It literally does not matter. When designing a support like this you have to account for wind coming from every direction.

While wind will more commonly come from a more lateral direction, there are a myriad of common circumstances that can cause it to move in any direction imaginable. A common summer thunderstorm produces microbursts that blow nearly straight down followed by nearly straight up once they hit the ground.

The bottom line is the stresses on this stand are not all that different from the ones previously pictured all through this thread.

I"m sorry, I don't understand your conclusion (and I mean that as in I'm the one not comprehending, not that your conclusion is bad- I'm looking to understand)

The shape of this craft is wildly different. The aircraft shown in the other pictures are mostly flat shapes with small fins- a mostly solid and singular form. The spaceship's form is broken up and would be more akin to an aircraft with six wings set horizontally, vertically, and in-between. So, not only do they have to account for wind coming from every possible direction, they have to account for simultaneous and severely different stresses from all those conceivable points. Wouldn't a lateral wind hit each part of this shape differently and cause lift, drag, torque, etc all at once? Imagine holding out your hand out a window while driving and the difference between holding your fingers all together into a flat plane as opposed to splaying them open.

Again, not fighting your understanding, only saying that to me, these seem to be wildly different profiles and not a good 1:1 comparison.

 

[Master Yoda]

I"m sorry, I don't understand your conclusion (and I mean that as in I'm the one not comprehending, not that your conclusion is bad- I'm looking to understand)

The shape of this craft is wildly different. The aircraft shown in the other pictures are mostly flat shapes with small fins- a mostly solid and singular form. The spaceship's form is broken up and would be more akin to an aircraft with six wings set horizontally, vertically, and in-between. So, not only do they have to account for wind coming from every possible direction, they have to account for simultaneous and severely different stresses from all those conceivable points. Wouldn't a lateral wind hit each part of this shape differently and cause lift, drag, torque, etc all at once? Imagine holding out your hand out a window while driving and the difference between holding your fingers all together into a flat plane as opposed to splaying them open.

Again, not fighting your understanding, only saying that to me, these seem to be wildly different profiles and not a good 1:1 comparison.

Without getting too complicated and delving into too much minutia, the larger flat surfaces of an actual aircraft will most likely be worse than the multiple smaller surfaces of the Star Blaster. To borrow an analogy someone previously used, it would be a larger sail and catch more wind.

If anything, the Star Blaster could probably work with a smaller stand than something like an F14, F18, etc.

Aboth the only plus is the chances of anything happening to the Star Blaster are pretty minimal. I have a feeling the wings would physically tear off before that stand would fail.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Did they confirm no AAs ?

No.

The artist's concept seems to indicate that Rocket and Groot will be AAs in the preshow, while the rest of the cast will be on screen as if in their spaceship.

As far as the ride goes, we don't know that the 'scenes' will be composed of yet.

 

[IMDREW]

No.

The artist's concept seems to indicate that Rocket and Groot will be AAs in the preshow, while the rest of the cast will be on screen as if in their spaceship.

As far as the ride goes, we don't know that the 'scenes' will be composed of yet.

I thought the same thing of the Spidey pre-show concept art though. And that turned out to be a screen..

 

[Schmidt]

GOTG looks amazing and can't wait to ride this. I feel like this ride will kick butt and someone needed to say that.
Remember all the negativity about Pandora during construction. Seems like that turned out to be pretty okay! just peppering in some needed optimism.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I'm sure the ride will be fine. But once again - It's. In. The. Wrong. Damn. Park.

 

[Incomudro]

I'm sure the ride will be fine. But once again - It's. In. The. Wrong. Damn. Park.

Not anymore.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Not anymore.

Still the wrong park.

 

[doctornick]

Did they confirm no AAs ? Seems like a wasted opportunity. Even the Rocket in DCA in the preshow is quite impressive even if it's just in the preshow.

There was an article about the ride that specifically mentioned AAs in the ride building which was removed quickly. My take on that is that it basically indicates no AAs during the ride but they will in the pre show. After all, when preparing the article there was likely a discussion about AAs being there but it was mistaken as being during the ride so the article was corrected to be accurate. But the writer just wouldn’t have written about AAs unless they were mentioned.

 

[sedati]

Without getting too complicated and delving into too much minutia, the larger flat surfaces of an actual aircraft will most likely be worse than the multiple smaller surfaces of the Star Blaster. To borrow an analogy someone previously used, it would be a larger sail and catch more wind.

If anything, the Star Blaster could probably work with a smaller stand than something like an F14, F18, etc.

Aboth the only plus is the chances of anything happening to the Star Blaster are pretty minimal. I have a feeling the wings would physically tear off before that stand would fail.

Thanks for the response. But...

An airplane while offering more flat surface area does so along a single "plane" and is rendered as smooth as possible. The Star-Blaster, while smaller, exists on several planes and it's fuselage especially has many non-aerodynamic elements/detals. I guess my main issue is saying this craft poses even less problems when to me that's akin to saying that a plane with its landing gear down and all flaps deployed somehow poses less of a dynamic risk.

Not trying to be combative, just trying to understand. I will also add that the base does seem far larger than I'd imagine the need, no matter the forces at play. One other thing I might add is the area in which it's placed. The Star-Blaster reaches up fifty feet which I assume is considerably higher than most mounted jets. This is higher than some of the buildings and trees around it. Honestly, I'd love it if Imagineering could show off the wind tests for this.