P.C.: Yes. The checkoff schedule was very similar to last flight.

B. Was the launch accomplished without incident?

P.C.: Yes. There was no SAS dropout this time. Rotation to about 15° a and 2.2g normal acceleration was obtained.

The first two transmissions didn't indicate to me I was over on speed brakes, it indicated that I was under on profile and to get them back in. (The call was retract speed brakes to 20°.) I must have missed the 20° because when I heard that retract speed brakes call, your hand's going down like a blur to get them right in. As it was I found they were in and I had to bring them back out again. That took some time and I'll have to admit this knocks out your concentration from what you're trying to do. You try to look down and you can't. The callouts sometimes really help the pilot. I'm not doubting the ground guidance as far as the track but as far as the profile callouts, I could have done without them for they certainly didn't help me. Because of this divergence in concentration due to the speed brake changes I'd rate the pilot control task during the climbout as shown.

q 3.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

B. Describe and rate the pilot control task during the a = 0 portion of the climb.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I read zero g, in fact I was showing about 1/10 under, and the directional oscillation which you keep telling us to look for wasn't there. The airplane seemed to be as steady as a rock. l was coming up on 120,000 ft. pretty fast so I pushed over a little bit steep. As far as the a = 0, I'd just rate it as shown.

C. Could roll and/or yaw limit cycle be detected at a = 0°?

P.C.: No. I didn't get this pitch down sequence I got last flight where the airplane wanted to tuck on you a little bit and I've almost come to the conclusion that was the pitch vernier.

As I was leveling off the drag went down and I was having a hard time trying to breathe. You. feel like you're not going to be able to get that next breath. The acceleration is so tremendous that your concentrating on coming level. When you burn out the stress is relieved and all of a sudden you can take a nice pleasant breath.

D. How close did the flight burnout conditions match simulator runs (speed,. altitude, engine time)?

P.C.: We were about 20,000 feet above the altitude because I thought I was low on profile and was making a special effort to at least attain as much or more than we had flown on the simulator. Speed was about 100 ft/sec off and engine burning time, think I was reading about 82 seconds as against 81 seconds.

P.C.: I got the call for speed brakes in but I was reading about 2° angle of attack and there was no firm change in stability.

B. To what accuracy was q and f held during the tracking task

q ± ° f ± °

Editor's Note: The data show the airplane to be within ±8° in pitch and roll for 70 seconds after burnout, or to approximately the time of the gear door failure.

C. Comment on and rate the tracking task:

q 3 , f 2.5 , y 5.5 .

P.C.: Well, here again I can't really tell you why I got off to the left on the first part unless I was off my azimuth on drop as I was reading 210° and the B-52 was reading 212° and that should have made us come out on the heading. After burnout I can attribute the majority of this to the gear door coming out because the airplane just wanted to go left after that. Under these conditions I'd rate the task as shown.

I didn't have any real good presentation on pitch attitude and I was really having to guess at it.

I think the problem was mostly in yaw but I had in quite a bit of right rudder and right aileron so I could counteract the roll pretty good but the airplane still seemed to want to go to the left on me. I could see Cuddeback and I know I was at least 15 miles southeast of track but it wasn't until I got that thing really wrapped around down about 60,000 feet where I could really control it. This was with moderate buffet at all times, off and on, but different levels of buffet and it was all coming, I'm sure, from this gear door. It's a heck of a big vane sticking down.

Roll wasn't too hard to control at all. All you had to do was throw the stick over and she'd respond.

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

P.C.: See comment III-C.

E. Did "SAS" function satisfactorily during the flight?

P.C.: Absolutely, better than I've ever seen it. In fact, isn't this the first time I've launched that we didn't drop out to ASAS?

The roll damper tripped out as a result of this gear door failure but I got it back on the line pretty good. What happened was I felt this continuous banging in the back like you normally get when it's oil canning but all of a sudden this new sound came in like a big up-front explosion somewhere and the airplane began to shake. During this time I noticed the ASAS damper was on and I noticed the roll damper blinking at me. I thought "that sure felt like a funny damper off condition," and I reached down to re-engage it. What I was feeling still continued so I got ASAS off the line but it felt to me like I had a panel loose on the airplane and it was out in the breeze. This came out to be true.

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

P.C.: Yes, definitely and I didn't pick up that limit cycle noted on the last flight.

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

P.C.: Yes. I did appreciate the call from ground control this that I was using about 15° speed brakes.

P.C.: The structural failure of the nose gear door was a new experience and I smoke ooze up in the cockpit in about four flights but I experienced it on this flight.

B. Compare flight profile with simulator performance.

P.C.: If we had proceeded on the simulator with the same maneuvers as I had on the flight it would have ended right at the same altitude. It's very similar to what we find ourselves at high Mach number, low altitude regardless of angle of attack and you go over the top very similar.

C. Compare airplane controllability with simulator.

P.C.: Almost the same. Very similar to the airplane dynamics.