I think that, of the so-called inertial or ficticious forces, you are thinking of the centrifugal rather than the coriolis force [1]. On any of the ballistic /

I think that, of the so-called inertial or ficticious forces, you are thinking of the centrifugal rather than the coriolis force [1]. On any of the ballistic / into space flights, you would experience weightlessness between the engine cutoff and the point where atmospheric forces became noticable -- this is what the space tourism companies are aiming for. I do not know if any flights were conducted at a constant altitude, but note that the centrifugal force goes by the square of the angular velocity. Also, Mach numbers depend on atmospheric temperature and therefore indirectly on altitude. Strictly speaking, a Mach number for the ISS is meaningless, and even if we are being lax, the figure of Mach 22 is not directly comparable to the X-15 record Mach number. The comparison must be made between speeds, which are, approximately, 17,000 mph for the ISS and 4,500 mph for the X-15 record. If we disregard the relatively small difference in the radius (from the center of the earth), then my BOE calculation suggests that the reduction in weight is about 7%. Note, however, that while the motor is running, its acceleration is the biggest contribution to weight (reaching up to 4g as the fuel weight goes down.) Once it is cut off, then our assumption of level (i.e. non-ballistic) flight assumes that the airplane is capable of generating lift equal to its weight, which implies sufficient atmospheric density for the small wings to generate that lift. This, in turn, seems to imply enough density to produce a non-trivial deceleration due to drag, which also contributes to weight. Therefore, I doubt that there is any phase of the flight where the centrifugal reduction of weight is the dominant effect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force