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

3. Pushover to O g.

4. Increase a until » 1.5g is attained.

5. Burnout - pushover to 0 a roll to 80° left bank.

6. Pullup to 23°a (trim dH » -25) - perform da pulse at pilot's discretion.

7. Roll to 80° right bank.

8. Roll out on heading 177°, disengage roll SAS.

9. Reset SAS - pushover to Oa for 5 sec - pullup to 10°a.

10. Pushover to Oa for 5 sec. pullup to 10°a.

11. Vector to high key for landing, start jettison (H2O2 "OFF").

P.C.: There were no changes from the last launch.

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

P.C.: It was easier and required less work to run the modified trim knob. The ratings apply strictly to the reduction in workload due to the improved trim knob on the side stick.

P.C.: Very different because that simulator is the world's worst as far as pumping back and forth on the SAS is concerned. (Misalignment between SAS and the control actuator.)

B. Rate the pilot task to fly the climb, up to the point of pushing over to zero g. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: It's not difficult at all to fly the climb profile. The only problem is scanning around due to the constantly changing trim. You have to keep coming back to the main presentation to make sure the longitudinal attitude hasn't drifted off. There is no control problem at all.

C. Note the differences between the simulated and actual climb profiles, from the point of pushover to burnout. Was the pullup required to hold the proper pitch attitude?

P.C.: I think that I noted a lateral uneasiness in the zero-g portion of the profile. I observed either a lateral acceleration or directional movement in a cyclic operation. It was so mild that I did not attempt to damp it but just noted that this was going on.

I would say the frequency was between 1 to 2/cycles/sec and as we got up near the higher speeds it increased a little bit.

The oscillation was sensed primarily from acceleration, rather than airplane motion, so I wouldn't have noted this on the simulator and furthermore, I feel this would probably be lost in the background noise on the simulator. The pullup was required principally to maintain a steady q during the acceleration from 5,000 ft/sec on up and to attempt to completely drain the fuel tank.

D, Rate the pilot task for the speed run. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: There was no control problem at all, it still really does feel like a flying machine.

E. Estimate the change in pitch attitude during the speed run.

P.C.: I had hit almost zero q prior to establishing the tag end pullup, and actually we didn't gain much q in that period of time anyway. It was still probably more than 5°q when I burned out.

F. Was heating noted in the cockpit?

P.C.: I didn't particularly note heating in the cockpit during the acceleration run, but I did during the deceleration. I saw smoke drifting up along both sides of the canopy.

P.C.: I didn't have any special trouble with the handling characteristics during the windup turn so we didn't have to pitch down much. I think I did hold the nose down in order to have it come up while I was low in altitude. I applied some roll control and when I pushed forward I apparently eased off on the roll control input, so I didn't maintain a steady roll rate and as it slowed up I had to crank it on over again. The pitch axis was steadier than had been indicated on the simulator all the way up through. I pulled back stick in ahead of the trim rate to make. sure we got full trim which, within the friction band, essentially allows you to come up to 23°a without additional pull force. Then I pulled a little bit more to make sure I went on the high side of 23°a.

I didn't have to make a deliberate lateral control input to disturb the airplane, but I didn't have any trouble controlling bank angle. The only trouble I had was sideslip going back and forth. However, without much effort I was able to block the sideslip by using the b technique. The motion was slow and I didn't need to go directly into it but just gently phase the aileron input with the indicated b reading. I didn't continue to try to damp the b oscillation to zero as I had observed the speed was coming down and we were able to get all this at the higher angle of attack. I was still above 20° a when I initiated reverse roll and overran on heading. I started pulling back up again as I went on across, so I carried the roll way over to the other side and then rolled back level again. I didn't appreciate any necessity for being cautious about controlling the roll at all. I stuck the roll control in there and it rolled back across, bounced the nose back up in the middle of the roll, and then popped it back to left with no exceptionally higher roll rate than is to be expected from any reasonable instrument flight.

B. Describe and rate the pilot task to maintain a > 23°. q 2 , f 1 , y 3 .

P.C.: While the airplane still shifted directionally it wasn't wobbling around in the midst of the roll. It shifted back when I reversed the direction but it wasn't particularly oscillatory until I stopped rolling and leveled out. Then b kept going back and forth.

I think the speed change may have made it difficult to maintain the same angle of attack and complicated the control task.

C. Compare the simulator predicted airplane motions with the flight experience at high a's.

P.C.: The simulator was worse I believe, from what I experienced in flight. I couldn't hold bank angle steady at all, it was always joshling around. Every time I would make a sideslip correction on the simulator my bank angle would go one way or the other. Also, it was looser in pitch. I would compare the pitch damper out flight condition with what the simulator had been showing me at 23°a with the dampers on. I would say that possibly the simulator indicated less directional stability, but not much. On the flight it appeared it wasn't going to try to do anything more than maintain a constant non-damped oscillation, where on the simulator, I got the impression that the motion was slowly getting worse.

D. Describe and rate the pilot task to perform the left to right bank maneuver. q 1 , f 1 , y 2 .

P.C.: 1 think I have already rather well covered this left-right bank maneuver and the pilot task involvement. The problem with the pitch is simply a case of holding the nose higher than trim with force and when you put in the roll input your pitch force relaxes and the a gets down. It wasn't any trouble to pull a back up.

E. What was the change in angle of attack during the roll reversal?

P.C.: I was above 20°a when I started the roll and it came down to 15° and then went back up to near 20° when I rolled back. As a reduced to 15° again, I had to pull force to get 20° because by this time I was slower and had less trim capability. I had to pull back on the stick to get the nose back up there, and this time I sure did use both sticks to follow it up to 20°a.

F. From this flight experience, estimate the maximum controllable angle of attack.

P.C.: I did three items above or at 20°a and the airplane wasn't getting away at 23°a so I feel the maximum controllable a has not been reached. I think that the maximum controllable angle of attack is going to be mostly limited by the zero force trim stabilizer setting you can get.

G. Could any change in handling characteristics be detected upon switching to ASAS roll gain?

P.C.: When I came back up to 20°a with the ASAS operating, the directional control task was almost identical to what I had just finished with the normal SAS. I couldn't appreciate any difference but of course, the speed was a little different.

H. Rate the pilot control task during the ASAS check. q 1 , f 1 , y 3.5 .

I. Rate the pilot control task during the pushdown pullup maneuvers.

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The pushdown pullup maneuvers that were performed were a breeze .

P.C.: There was no strain during the terminal portion of the flight. I had all kinds of help, both from ground and from the chase airplane. When I came in with speed brakes, I had some trouble to get both rudder and aileron position at zero force with the airplane flying straight ahead. I looked at this thing, moved the rudder around and moved the lateral control around, and finally it did take a little bit of right rudder. I had to line up again, which put the sideslip needle back off center.

B. Rate the pilot control task during this time. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

Approach q 2 , f 1 , y 1 .

Flare q 2 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The only trouble in the landing pattern continues to be, when you put the flaps down, catching up with the nose-up tendency fast enough to keep from ballooning up and down.

B. Was a spot landing attempted?

P.C.: A spot landing was attempted but the landing was short of the touchdown point.