Warreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 682 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5317 times:
Is there any technical reason(s) why the Zero G company uses at 727? Is the 727 airframe (or design) better for this application that say a DC-9? Or a L-1011?
Nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 781 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5303 times:
I would imagine that flying those parabolas is stressful to the aircraft, so a strong airframe and the extra redundancy of three engines could be a good thing. That is just a total guess on my part though and I'm sure someone else will have a more factual answer.
Does anyone know what kind of modifications that had to make to the aircraft?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5294 times:
I don't think the particular plane has any significance. IIRC ESA use an A300.
They probably took it because that particular plane was available at a good price and in good condition. Also the 727 has a decent interior size (length and width). A DC-9 is narrower, meaning less space for interior activities. An equivalent vintage 737 is shorter.
I don't think you'd need to make any structural modifications since they're not really exceeding any design limits. I could be wrong though. Inspections are likely to be more frequent since they're putting more fatigue on the structure in a shorter time than usual.
Quoting Nws2002 (Reply 1): I would imagine that flying those parabolas is stressful to the aircraft,
Not really. We're talking zero to two gees with gentle transition. You probably wouldn't see those values in service due to passenger comfort, but it's comfortably within spec. It puts extra fatigue life on the structure, but it is well within design limits.
Quoting Nws2002 (Reply 1): the extra redundancy of three engines could be a good thing.
I don't think this makes any difference at all. They're not doing ETOPS. If all engines fail they can probably glide back to the airport.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1372 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
Because it's an awesome airplane, that's why! lol
I remember reading somewhere that the only modifications they made were some slight modifications to the oil system in the engines to operate under 0-G.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2): If all engines fail they can probably glide back to the airport.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4717 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4857 times:
Quoting Nws2002 (Reply 1): I would imagine that flying those parabolas is stressful to the aircraft, so a strong airframe and the extra redundancy of three engines could be a good thing.
I'd have to agree with you! Plus the fact that NASA used a few B707's for the Zero G aircraft for many years, the same cross section of fuselage as the B727. Just things that make you go MMMMMMMMM!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4656 times:
Quoting Warreng24 (Thread starter): Is there any technical reason(s) why the Zero G company uses at 727? Is the 727 airframe (or design) better for this application that say a DC-9? Or a L-1011?
My question is "why not"?
It seems that the 727 met the requirements for passenger capacity and aircraft performance, and was no doubt relatively inexpensive to obtain. No doubt they considered other types, but decided that for their application the 727 is the best overall selection.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4609 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 5): I'd have to agree with you! Plus the fact that NASA used a few B707's for the Zero G aircraft for many years, the same cross section of fuselage as the B727. Just things that make you go MMMMMMMMM!
The "vomit comet" was actually a KC135, which has a smaller diameter fuselage than the 727 does
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4531 times:
Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 10): Are the windows removed/covered to prevent disorientation/passengers getting rather alarmed?
"Getting alarmed"? You mean someone on board didn't know they were going to experience variable Gs?
As for disorientation, you may be right. I think you don't want to give visual clues like the horizon while you are doing zero G. Zero G is zero G whether in orbit or in a vomit comet. But if you can look it adds to disorientation.
Seriously though, I think the reason is threefold:
- You don't want someone running into a window instead of padding when floating. This could damage the window, the person, or both.
- Windows may distract from the experiments/orientations/training being run.
- Cover plates are lighter and require less maintenance than windows.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1372 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4236 times:
No windows because in her other life she hauls freight for Amerijet. The interior of the airplane is Gil liner like any other freighter except it's nice and clean.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 682 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15867 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
But what I meant was that an extra engine on an aircraft that is only flying locally isn't a major sticking point.
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
