2. Maintain 2g until q = 30°, maintain q = 30°.

3. Pushover to 0 g.

4. Shut down engine - roll to 60° right bank, increase to 10°a when q = 0°.

5. Pullup and pushover to a = 15°, 20°, 15°, 10° with approximately 3 sec. hesitation at each a. Maintain q » 0°.

6. Pullup and pushover to a = 15°, 20°, 15°, 10° with approximately 3 sec hesitation at each a. Maintain q » 0°.

7. Pullup to 15°a - pushover to 10°a, extend speed brakes.

8. Vector to high key for landing, start jettison, H2O2 "OFF".

9. Check ventral armed, pressurize tanks.

10. Before APU shutdown, cycle controls, retract flaps, set stabilizer trim to zero, push-to-test ball nose, data "OFF."

P.C.: We didn't have any non-routine events. I pulled up and felt some buffeting.

B. Rate the pilot task to recover from launch and establish the climbout attitude. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The task to recover from launch, and establish a climbout attitude seemed to be even easier today than it ever was before. I was paying particular attention to the recorrected heading. I was 3° off from the B-52 when I finally got straightened out on heading. I had a little rock and lateral acceleration after leveling out. There was no trouble flying heading, and I pulled up but didn't follow up fast enough with trim so I got up to 13°, q back to 10°, back up to 13° again. I homed n on 2g, and I flew 2g on up to pushover. I started to slow the rate as I slid into 30°q. I overdid that easing the nose up, and overran 0°q when I came back down.

I got on the track and by that time I suspected that I was probably drifting low on the climb profile. I eased up to about 2°a and sure enough, NASA 1 told me I was low. I held that, and he kept saying low. I shoved over. In fact, I started pushover a whole second early. Actually, I came up to about +2°a since NASA 1 called still low after I pushed over, and cutoff the engine.

I reached for the throttle a little early this time so that I did not bounce things with my hand. I started rolling right into the turn, as soon as I shut the engine off. I pushed below zero g a little to help hurry the thing. I started to hold the turn but NASA 1 was calling q going down; so I let it drift. Finally, as it went below zero q I cranked in 10° a, and had to let it come down. I started to do my series with nulling at about -10°a, I believe it was, on the attitude. It just didn't feel like I was slowing; so I just went ahead and flew. When the attitude started coming up I'd increase the bank to hold it down. Once I hurried down from high a in time to stop it from coming up on the nose. I even started a second series at about 4,300 ft/sec indicated. I actually added a 20°a pullup under 3,500 ft/sec. It seemed like a very convenient thing to do, and so to fly the climb profile the only bother was the effect of the thoroughly cursed trim knob.

With the usual pilot tendency of flying by the stick, and trimming out force, my thumb became locked, and I could not trim without letting go of the stick. I did not want to put a bob into the airplane; so that's when I switched to the center stick. I locked the attitude wherever it had to be, and adjusted the trim. Then I relaxed, and flew with the sidestick. The next time I went to move I did the same thing again.

It is more convenient to use the sidestick for lateral inputs, but it wasn't any problem at all to control pitch with the center stick and just use the side stick as a trimmer. The rating at launch was 1, 1, 1 except for pitch trim problem.

P.C.: I think the climb profile was a little touchy; if you don't pay attention to it you can get off q pretty easy.

B. Were heading corrections required during this time?

P.C.: Every time it drifted out from my established heading, I steered back on, and it really didn't drift out much. It didn't seem to have much tendency to drift off.

C. Discuss and rate the pilot task to fly the requested profile at zero g. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The zero-g portion was really better than it was on the altitude flight. It wasn't too steep and I had reasonable q all the way. At the end I had a higher q, so it was controlling as nicely there as it had been during the initial pullup. In fact, I had a notion that my q was a small amount higher in the later portions of the profile; except from the correction I didn't know how much it was at indicated airspeed.

D. Was the airplane response at shutdown normal, compared with previous fights?

P.C.: The airspeed was higher toward the shutdown then it had been at the bottom when I initiated the climbup.

P.C.: The only thing that I visualize as being different in the airplane from the simulator is it was easier with the airplane. Once I used the middle stick, it was very easy. I feel I did a better job of steadying out on these various angles of attack for short periods than I had been doing on the simulator. I found it very troublesome to try to drop down from 20°a to 15°a without sailing right on to 10° or vice versa, while practicing. I found it very simple to do in the airplane.

I think bank angle was easier to handle in the airplane because I wasn't aware that I had to make as many bank angle changes. I may have made several that I wasn't conscious of doing, but certainly it was not a conscious problem at all. I think that I was able to maintain a steadier bank angle because it seemed to be no problem hanging on to pitch. In the simulator I had to go to 90° angle of bank, sometimes down to 45° and I was wandering back and forth on both sides of 60° quite frequently.

I wasn't trying to hold attitude except pitch. I was flying wherever I determined the ideal pitch angle q to remain, and from that point I flew to the angle q then I ran up and down with a variation on angle of attack.

B. Estimate precision of the piloting task to perform the bank maneuver as compared with the simulator practice runs. Rate the piloting task.

Flight: q 1 3/4 , f 1 , y 1 .

Simulator: q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: Change in bank angle was indicated by how the angle of attack was affecting q. Once I quit attempting to get q down I started to build up q; so that once again the piloting task was only adversely effected by the trim problem. When I got a system to beat that it was simply a case of worrying about whether or not q was actually getting higher, or whether it was hanging on.

C. What factors contribute to the difference in ratings noted above?

Interviewer's Comment: Bank angle was easier with the airplane than with the simulator.

D. Describe the technique used, and rate the first series of pullup-pushover maneuvers. Pilot rating q 1 3/4 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: Part of the technique with the stick was to avoid jerking it while being bounced around in the cockpit, which was not the case here. This was just a matter of locking the thing with one hand while you were using the center stick to do the problem. This was not used to particularly keep from being bounced around. This was used on the initial pullup. Maybe the same technique could apply to the series of pullup-pushover maneuvers.

Under 3,500 ft/sec, I pulled up on beyond 15°a clear into 20°a. A very large stick force is required. I am sure I could not do it with the side stick alone.

Question: What would be wrong with switching to the center stick if you want to pull a higher angle of attack?

P.C.: Nothing is wrong with switching to the center stick. I don't see that there is anything to be gained unless the pilot prefers, due to the situation, to use the side stick, except it may foul up the force measurements.

E. Would pilot ratings of the simulator control characteristics be the same during this portion of the flight (III.D)?

P.C.: As I said before, I'd rate the piloting task better in flight than it had been on the simulator. It seemed that this wobbling in q by making bank angle change inputs seemed to be more of a problem on the simulator than in flight.

Ratings under III.B were intended to carry over into this area for both the flight and the simulator.

F. Did the maneuvers (III.D.) provide a satisfactory lateral directional handling quality evaluation over the a range covered?

P.C.: I find it very easy to roll into the bank, stop, and then wait for the nose to come down to the right q. I adjusted the trim tab to start lowering the angle of attack; so I wouldn't have any particular trouble with any axis. I might give it a 1-3/4 in pitch as compared to 1 in bank, probably 1 in azimuth. I think that even if I hadn't had the trim tab problem I would have had a sensitivity problem where it would have been difficult to make precise predetermined amounts of pitch change.

I'm forced to say that you certainly get a good appreciation of lateral-directional handling qualities. By changing the bank angle at the same time I was varying the pitch angle I got a good feel for the handling qualities. I thought at one time that it fishtailed a little as a result of a rapid bank and pitch input. Then it calmed down, and I didn't seem to have this problem anymore. Later when I had the nose down, the speed had picked up, and I pulled up and it felt like the controls were probably over-damped.

Comment: It looked like that too on TM, when you pushed the nose down the sideslip oscillation went away, and became just a function of angle of attack. The only problem is that it takes too long. Maybe you don't get too much change in the flight conditions because you can hold the speed by varying the nose attitude.

P.C.: Yes, but the total velocity keeps coming down. However, it wasn't coming down very rapidly. I didn't note the speed when I finally started to increase the angle of attack. I assume that it was around 5,200 ft/sec. I only had a 1,000 ft/sec change in velocity. It ran from zero angle of attack through 10°a, through 15°a, through 20°a, through 15° to 10°a, and already starting back up again. It is easy, judging from this flight, to get it into an attitude that seems as though you could hold it indefinitely.

G. Would the responses to III.D, E, F be the same for the second series of pullup-pushover maneuvers performed at the lower Mach numbers?

P.C.: The responses I think would be the same except for the fact that the pitch rating would go toward 2; because of being made to use muscle power besides maximum trim capability to get the higher angle of attack.

H. Was cockpit instrument panel display adequate for performing this task?

P.C.: Obviously the panel display was adequate but the meter that we put in there to help with q certainly made a poor display. The total pressure was taken from the dog leg. In the time available they couldn't get at the ball nose total. I was thoroughly briefed on what I would probably see. It did one thing, lt came out reading 600 knots at zero g near the peak altitude; at engine shutdown which was good verification that I had the nose where it should be.

This really determined what I intended to do right after that, which in this case simplified itself to just getting the nose down to a reasonable number on pitch.

I. Estimate the clarity of ground to air communications throughout this flight.

P.C.: I thought ground to air communications were excellent throughout the flight. I don't think I missed a call. Signal strength was generally 4 to 5 and the readability was 4+ all the time. As a matter of fact, I was busy, and not wanting to block out the transmissions I was getting from the ground, I didn't bother to answer the B-52 repeats. Things were going along fine except for the fact that they got a spurious q output, and this was the only detriment from the ground communications. If they had good q readings it would have worked just the way that we planned.

J. Other than communications, was ground control effective on the flight?

P.C.: As I increased the nose angle I thought it was connected to the ground-based equipment. As NASA 1 called out low, the meter was unwinding, and I finally decided it was giving erroneous readings, because it kept right on going down, even though at the same rate I pushed the nose down further and further. Comparatively speaking, it just never seemed to stop going down until I decreased angle of attack and then it wrapped back up. I increased angle of attack, and it unwrapped some more.

P.C.: I was hoping to do this from the ground call outs. Even I could tell that they were wrong, as it didn't make any sense at all to be pulling 4g with 20° angle of attack at 200 q.

P.C.: There were no non-routine events during the approach and landing. The only non-routine event in the whole flight was the rough running engine.

No SAS problems. The only thing I felt was mentioned before when I was under 400 knots, down toward 350, when I was making pitch attitude changes trying to jockey the nose in stops to further decrease the speed I gave an input and this 13 cycle thing started, I wasn't aware of it before or anywhere else on the flight and I didn't notice anything that might have been a residual oscillation.

B. Rate the pilot task on the approach and landing.

Approach q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

Landing q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The pilot task on approach and landing was better today than on the last flight; because I learned a few things on the last flight,. I trimmed visually to -2° stabilizer, and used wrist force only. Maybe it was -1°, and then I cranked in another one when I put the flaps down. I used full force all the way through the approach, and the landing, in order to work off the 2° rather than out of zero degrees and made an essentially much smoother damped landing control and flight path. It gives more feel and it gave me more precision too. You start from a no-load condition rather than trying to come up out of a breakout.

JW:dmo

Typed: 6-21-62