A Zero G Ride for a Mere $2,950!

[tonyw]

Maybe Oprah can sponsor people for this one!

Since the beginning of the space age, anybody who wanted to experience weightlessness either had to be an astronaut or have connections to get a ride on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's vaunted "Vomit Comet" jetliner, where the weightless scenes for the movie "Apollo 13" were shot.

Starting today, a company called Zero-G Corp. will begin selling rides to all comers who want to see if their stomachs have the right stuff to endure two hours on a modified Boeing 727 named G-Force-One.

Doug, if that's too much, feel free to kill it. Unfortunately, you have to pay to get access to the Wall Street Journal (gee, what a surprise there) so I figured I'd post some text and the link.

No Movie, No Frequent Flier Plan, and No Gravity

Zero G Corp Homepage

And it takes off from Ft. Lauderdale Intl. Might try it sometime. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

[RiddlePilot]

Or I could just go up and screw around zero-G in a 172 for much much less. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[N9103M]

[ QUOTE ]
And it takes off from Ft. Lauderdale Intl. Might try it sometime. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/spin2.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The company contracts a specially modified Amerijet 727 for the ride.... You can see it flying in and out of MIA on an almost daily basis.

[triple7]

you got 3 grand?

[UAL747400]

[ QUOTE ]
Or I could just go up and screw around zero-G in a 172 for much much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck yeah, I know I've tried it. You pick up speed fast so you have to watch it a little. Probly not a good idea as the fuel probly gets lifted from the inlet.

Tom

[ QUOTE ]
you got 3 grand?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but I will start to work and I can achieve that if I want. Off course I have other things to worry about before doing this.

[RPM]

[ QUOTE ]
Or I could just go up and screw around zero-G in a 172 for much much less. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


Thats what I was thinking...a helluva lot cheaper to just go do it on your own.

[jtrain609]

Two really bad things come to mind when doing such a thing in a 172: fuel exaustion due to the fuel being gravity fed into the engine and a lack of an inverted oil system. Do it too much and your engine will stop due to lack of gas. Continue to do it and it won't turn back on again because it dosen't have any oil.

[Aviator737]

Probably a stupid question, but how much of this kinda flying could a 727 take before it imposes excessive structural loads on the aircraft? Worst nightmare for me: wings getting pulled off! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] That video of the Partenavia (sp?) at the airshow gives me the heebie-jeebies every time I see it.

In this manuever, because it's "zero G", does the descent rate impose no loads on the wings? How about during the pull-up?

[UAL747400]

I do this in a warrior, still could cause fuel starvation. Oil is also pretty heavy, I think the danger of hurting the engine by lack of lubrication might be pretty slim. Of course I'm no airframe/powerplant tech. so I wouldnt know for sure.

Car engines take the oscilations of driving on the road, and they have less oil with a more complicated lubrication system.

What ever though, still probly not a good idea to do it alot

Tom

[jtrain609]

If you start paying attention to aerobatic airplanes, they have inverted fuel/oil systems for a reason. Only reason I mention it.

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
If you start paying attention to aerobatic airplanes, they have inverted fuel/oil systems for a reason. Only reason I mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all of them. The Citabria starts to sputter in an extended loop.

[bullmastiff]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably a stupid question, but how much of this kinda flying could a 727 take before it imposes excessive structural loads on the aircraft? Worst nightmare for me: wings getting pulled off! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] That video of the Partenavia (sp?) at the airshow gives me the heebie-jeebies every time I see it.

In this manuever, because it's "zero G", does the descent rate impose no loads on the wings? How about during the pull-up?

[/ QUOTE ]



They should be alright....I can tell you in a 707 during a "combat descent" our wings never came off(neither did the 2500 frisbee strapped to our back)... They are kind of similar. You do a rapid combat descent to get below the enemys GCI coverage. They can be brutal. Once, someone wasnt strapped in,, bad news, 5 ft bloody streak on the celing.

[CaptainChris87]

Im down for it, I say make it a JC event [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
"Jc goes weightless 2005"

[CaptainChris87]

dang UAL is that your picture in a beach up in grand Forks ND???? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cwm27.gif[/img]

[RiddlePilot]

The fuel thing really isn't a big deal. I've had an engine sputter once or twice due to some pretty aggressive negative-G stuff, but the engine's not going to just stop for good if you lose fuel flow for a couple seconds. Once the fuel is returned, the engine springs back to life and all is well. Think about when you do engine-out stuff in a multi in the practice area. Mixture knobs and fuel selectors get yanked all the time.

The oil problem is actually an interesting idea. I'm going to look into that more.

[tonyw]

Ah, but that's the part of the article that I didn't post!

Boeing and the FAA both say that the manuevers are well within the 727's design limits. They did this 1,000 times in order to make sure the 727 could handle it.

And NASA's "Vomit Comet," a modified KC-135, has done this many, many, many times, since the days of the space race, and it's still going strong! The Journal article refers to it as an "aging" aircraft!

[Josh]

[ QUOTE ]
If you start paying attention to aerobatic airplanes, they have inverted fuel/oil systems for a reason. Only reason I mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've flown a few models of Citbria, and only one of them has inverted systems. Lesse, Citabria is airbatic backwards. Not all of them have inverted systems. They are called inverted systems, not zero g systems [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm pretty comfortable with the fact they will all run inverted for a short time. When you want to do some extended inverted stuff, the KCAB models, with inverted fuel and oil, are nice. If you read a Citabria manual, it is fairly clear how the system they use works. And why it only works for a short time (a couple minutes).

Of course, this is where you have to worry about not only 0g stuff, but also the negative g stuff. With a 0g thing like being offered here, I'd think they can avoid fuel flow issues a little easier.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
Probly not a good idea as the fuel probly gets lifted from the inlet.

[/ QUOTE ]


Doesnt hurt a thing! Running a fuel tank dry is perfectly fine, contrary to many OWTs. Just don't do both at once.

[USMCmech]

[ QUOTE ]
Two really bad things come to mind when doing such a thing in a 172: fuel exaustion due to the fuel being gravity fed into the engine and a lack of an inverted oil system. Do it too much and your engine will stop due to lack of gas. Continue to do it and it won't turn back on again because it dosen't have any oil.

[/ QUOTE ]


Cessnas have an engine driven fuel pump just like everybody else, graviety is their back up.

Both the fuel and oil pumps create a suction that will keep things flowing for the few seconds you are 0 or even negative G. The engie start time is far worse to your engine.


As for the airframe question, NASAs KC-135 performes a 1.5-1.8 G pull out on the bottom of their parabollas. Hardley a strain on the wings. Since it is subjected to this constant strain they have carefully examined it for weakness. The genral consensous is that the frequent G loading isn't an issue.

The main factor leading to metal fatigue is pressurization cycles of the cabin. Rember the Aloha plane that lost it's roof, it had almost as many pressurization cycles as hours.

[RPM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you start paying attention to aerobatic airplanes, they have inverted fuel/oil systems for a reason. Only reason I mention it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the unlimited aerobatic oil systems aren't set up for prolonged knife-edge or vertical flight...you generally have to watch your oil pressure gauge or follow the 10 second rule for that type of flying even in unlimited aircraft. Most inverted systems basically just add a modified oil pickup in the top of the engine in addition to the one in the oil pan and add baffles in the pan to keep the oil sloshing to a minimum.

If the plane is going vertical or knife-edge you only have around 10 seconds max for the maneuver before oil starvation becomes a problem....unless you go with a dry sump system which hardly anyone uses.

The fuel thing isn't a big deal in the cessnas....yeah, you can get the carburated ones to sputter and even die sometimes if you get real agressive with em, but they start right back up once you level out. It's more of a fuel metering problem with the carburator not fuel starvation due to gravity feed systems like people think. You should always be at a sufficient altitude doing stuff like that in a Cessna anyway. The only time i've ever had serious carburator issues in a Cessna was doing a falling leaf stall (falling backwards) then going into a spin in a 152...at about 3-4 seconds falling backwards it started sputtering and just about died, so I kicked the rudder to the floor to bring it around into a spin and get the nose pointed down and it smoothed right out [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I've never had any issues with oil press. or fuel starvation just doing short 5-7 second vertical dives...any longer than that and you'd pick up too much speed anyway and have a whole new set of problems to deal with, like wings ripping off [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Cessnas are lame, I want a Pitts!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]