Yikes! Would you ride this??

[mjr]

I wouldn't...It's a ride that spins in multiple dimensions...

I hope the ride operators (and other people who ride) like cleaning up barf...

http://nerdist.com/this-new-ride-mig...her-dimension/

[April]

I SO want to ride this!!

[KuariKaydrith]

Nope.

Ain't gonna happen in a million years.

[Crossbow]

Heh. My roller-coaster fanatic co-worker shard this earlier this week. He won't go anywhere near it.

When I was a lot younger, I did try one of the single-rider 3 axis gyroscope rides. That was... interesting...

[dendawg]

Another dimension? Sounds like the ride level's over 9000! :P

[XCashier]

It's pretty cool to look at, I must admit, but I don't think I'd ride it. One of the responses of the original article pointed out that "there isn't enough clearance between the riders' feet and the frame that whirls by them." and it sure looks like he's right. I'd prefer a lot more room between the frames, just in case you get a very long-legged guest.

That, and it'd make me so dizzy I'd be falling down for three days!

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

The Gravitron single-handedly made me never want to get on another amusement ride. I will be getting nowhere near that thing.

[Kittish]

I agree that there doesn't look to be sufficient clearance between the inner and middle frames.

Greatest "ride" I ever was on was a fully mobile flight simulator at the SAC Museum. I forget which plane it was for. I got to ride it alone, so I didn't have to share the controls. That was incredibly awesome! I think I spent more time inverted than upright, worked out how to do barrel rolls and loops and even recovered from a stall once. And only crashed once! *giggle* By the time I was halfway through my time, I didn't care that people watching the screens from outside could hear me whooping. Heck, a couple of them looked faintly green when I climbed out. I wanted to do it again.

[MoonCat]

Never. Ever. Ever.

Vertigo is NOT my friend

[Javarod]

Oh yeah, i wonder how long before Six Flags STL gets it (and about that name...)

[wolfie]

Greatest "ride" I ever was on was a fully mobile flight simulator at the SAC Museum. I forget which plane it was for.

Most likely either a B-47 or a B-52. If the pilot and co-pilot seats were one behind the other, it's a 47. If they're side by side, it's a 52. Those 2 planes were the mainstays of SAC for most of its existence. IIRC, the other SAC planes were the B-29, the B-50 ("stretched" version of the 29), and the B-36 (turboprop with its engines in "pusher" configuration).

No, not that kind of Mainstay - that would be the IL-76, and SAC did NOT fly it (it's a Russian bird).

[Teefies2]

Made me queasy just watching it. NOPE NOPE not in a million years. The only way I would ride this is if it would save my children from being killed :/

[Kittish]

Most likely either a B-47 or a B-52. If the pilot and co-pilot seats were one behind the other, it's a 47. If they're side by side, it's a 52. Those 2 planes were the mainstays of SAC for most of its existence. IIRC, the other SAC planes were the B-29, the B-50 ("stretched" version of the 29), and the B-36 (turboprop with its engines in "pusher" configuration).

No, not that kind of Mainstay - that would be the IL-76, and SAC did NOT fly it (it's a Russian bird).

I am fairly certain (though not entirely) that it was not a prop plane, but a jet. The seats were side by side, though.

[wolfie]

I am fairly certain (though not entirely) that it was not a prop plane, but a jet. The seats were side by side, though.

Side-by-side lets out the B-47. Considering the B-29, B-50, and B-36 collectively were used for only 10-15 years (IIRC, B-52 was introduced in the late '50s/early '60s, making it the longest-serving bomber in the USAF), it was probably a B-52.

When you described the simulator as actually flying, do you mean that it was on computer-controlled hydraulic legs? If so, that would definitely rule out the 29, 50, and 36 - they were withdrawn from service before computer technology had advanced to the point that such simulators were possible.

One early jet fighter (can't recall which one) had a simulator that occasionally had bugs in the display - specifically, from time to time the pilot "flying" it would see a hundred-foot-long cockroach. When that fighter was in service, computers hadn't been developed to the point that it was possible to synthesize the display on the screen, so to produce the visuals there was a scale model of the terrain, with a camera that would be "flown" over it in response to the control inputs. Needless to say, this severely limited the routing that could be "flown" - and the presence of "visitors" in 12" scale on the model would result in the "visitors" appearing through the "windshield" MUCH larger than life.

[bhskittykatt]

It looks like it's just a bigger version of one of these:

The Gravitron single-handedly made me never want to get on another amusement ride. I will be getting nowhere near that thing.

I'll do the Ring of Fire, Tilt-a-Whirl, that octopus one....I can do them all without difficulty (except the Zipper....never worked up the courage to try that one).

The Gravitron though was the only one that's every made me profoundly nauseous though. It doesn't even look that bad, but it just f**ked me up, man.