P.C.: Yes, except roll SAS tripped out and had to be reset.
 

Acquisition q 3 , f 1 , y 1 .

Hold q 3 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

B. Describe and rate task to pushover to zero "g".

P.C.: Stability was good at zero ~g."

C. To what tolerance was Hdot held?

P.C.: + 0. -200 ft/sec.

D. Rate task to hold Hdot = 0.

q 3.5 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

E. Did speed brake affect your control task and/or pilot rating?

P.C.: No

F. Which reference was used to shut down?

P.C.: I cross checked velocity and time, and shut down on both cues.

G. Was more than normal concentration needed to monitor shut down cues?

P.C.: No

H. Note any additional pertinent observations during the boost phase of this flight.

P.C.: Boost profile appeared to check with the simulator.

P.C.: The task of controlling pitch and roll is not difficult but controlling altitude is quite difficult because you don't have any lead information. I think q was within +5° and -3°, and in roll within a ±5°.

B. Comment on and rate the tracking task:

q 2 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

P.C.: The tracking task I'll rate as shown. There wasn't any problem , it was just a matter that I have to rate along with altitude control and I don't have any lead on either one of them. Stability wise it's no problem at all; I'll rate pitch 1-1/2 on stability, but as far as maintaining altitude it's always in error before you can make any correction. The only instrument that you can use, which doesn't give you any lead information at all is Hdot.

C. Was it a problem to maintain proper heading during the tracking task? If so comment.

P.C.: There was no problem controlling the track. I could have made a correction anywhere during the climbout if I had been off track. I didn't use any outside visual reference. At a point halfway down the track I couldn't have made a visual check without getting outside the pitch boundary because the lake was no longer in view, but even after I pushed over I wasn't concerned about it. I may have looked at Edwards but I don't think I did. I just went on the 3 axis ball heading.

I didn't use ^·y either.

D. Did ''SAS" function satisfactorily during the flight?

P.C.: With the exception of roll SAS dropping out at launch everything worked real good.

E. Could you detect the operation of "RAS"?

P.C.: I don't think RAS worked. The RAS out-light stayed on when I turned on the RAS controls.

F. Was approach from high key and landing accomplished without incident?

P.C.: Yes.

P.C.: I think this one was probably a lot easier than other flights I have had. I had a lot more time to just play around with the airplane after burnout. It's a very easy flight, there shouldn't be any problems. I don't think you could make it any more simple.

The only time I realized there was any longitudinal acceleration was just before burnout and again at shutdown, the negative deceleration. It's very much similar to coming out of after-burner at Mach 2 in the F-104. Maybe a little stronger.

B. Compare flight profile with simulator performance.

P.C.: The worst part of the flight that you don't get a good opportunity to practice is the zero g push-over. On this particular airplane there is a "g" meter that has 3 needles; 2 lockup needles and 1 floating. Of course, when you launch and get an engine light, you have 2 needles displaced and locked up so that you can't reset them. So, finding the right needle to go to zero "g" is a little problem. That "g" meter really isn't good on this airplane.

I would guess I was probably 1° a on the push-over. I think I was just slightly over 1/10 of a "g" because I was just a little bit behind on the altitude. I would guess 1° a was as low as I could have possibly got.

The flight profile, compared with simulator performance was for some reason or other and it may have just been the launch and the light up and everything; but the first point 22 seconds we were quite away behind, at 60 seconds we were a little behind, at 90 seconds I think we were right on, and at shutdown we were right on.

C. Compare airplane controllability with simulator.

P.C.: The controllability with the simulator, the airplane flew a lot better than the simulator did stability wise. It seemed to have much better stability in roll than the simulator's got; I guess at least 50% better, and directionally I'll say it's 30 to 50% better than the simulator. I didn't notice or feel any good directional oscillations that I have seen on the simulator. I'd say pitch was just exactly the same. The simulator pilot ratings in roll and yaw would be from 2 to 3.