2. 2 g - Maintain 2 g until q = 33°.

3. q = 33° - Maintain q = 33°.

4. Shutdown. Maintain » 6° a. Engage RAS. Auto cutoff "0N".

5. Push over to zero a. Maintain zero a until q = 0°. ^· y switch to "^· y."

6. q = +8°, Maintain q and f within ±8° to Cuddeback area.

7. Peak Altitude. Extend speed brakes to 20°. Maintain q » 0° until a = 20°. ^· y switch to standby at » 180,000 ft.

8. a = 20°. Maintain 20° a until 4 g.

9. 4 g - Maintain 4 g until Hdot = -500 fps (Max reentry q » 630).

10. Hdot = -500 fps, pushover to a » 3°, extend speed brakes to 35°, check RAS "OFF". Engine master "OFF".

11. Cuddeback - pull up to q > 0°. Test mode to "Landing", push over to a » 3°.

12. Retract speed brakes (if energy permits), push over to a = 0° for » 3 sec. Vector to high key. Speed brakes as required.

13. High Key.

P.C.: Yes.

B. Compare the prelaunch X-15, B-52 heading checks and the resulting ground track.

P.C.: It seemed that the X-15 heading was roughly 2° left of B-52 heading. However, if I assume that within 1 minute of launch he was on 214°, the X-15 was also on 214°, because that was the heading I noted just before launch. That was the heading I attempted to fly to. We drifted off however, I'd say about 2° on heading all through the flight. It appeared to me looking at the radar plot that very soon after we got on the climb q, that it was a constant angular departure from the ground track from that point on. There wasn't any abrupt heading changes. I did note at one time I drifted out to 216°, but very briefly, and I hauled the thing back on heading and maintained heading from there on.

C. Was the launch accomplished without incident?

P.C.: Yes. There was no sweat on the launch, no problem accomplishing the roundout.

P.C.: Piloting technique used to arrive at the planned engine shutdown conditions was as planned. Fly q, hold heading, and observe the relationship between altitude, velocity and burning time. My final checkpoint to decide whether I was going to be high or low was 92,000 ft at 60 sec. and it was right on the money. I did watch velocity for shutdown and it appeared to me our velocity came up at around 134,000 rather than 131,000 ft. 214° was the heading I was using. I was pulling the throttle on 5200 fps at the same time the count reached 81 sec. The only funny thing that occurred there is I'm positive I had the throttle in cutoff before the engine shut down. There was a noticeable delay between throttle cutoff and the engine actually shutting off, although there was a thrust reduction with reduction of throttle.

B. Which reference was used to shut down? (i.e. burning time or velocity)

P.C.: Engine shutdown was programmed on inertial velocity.

C. Rate the overall pilot task during the boost phase of the flight.

q > 250 q 1.5 , f 1 1/4 , y 1 1/4 .

q < 250 q 2.5 , f 1 1/4 , y 1 1/4 .

P.C.: I'm going to split the boost phase pilot task into 2 parts at roughly above and below about 250 q. At the higher dynamic pressures (initial portion of the climb) the control was really not too bad, and I'll rate it as shown. The only problem I had was inputs I made myself, and necessary corrections for heading. However later on, I expect about 50 seconds or thereabouts, the pitch task got to be a chore because of my inability to get a fine enough pitch trim input to take care of the droop as we got up around 100,000 feet. I wound up with an almost constant pitch cycle of ±2° of q at the burnout. I decided to settle on that, rather then trying to stop it on exactly 33°, assuming that it would average as much above as it went below the null value. So at the lower q's I'd say the pitch task was degraded as shown. I would recommend once again, we leave the automatic cutoff, off on RAS and just turn the three RAS channels on at about 50 seconds of engine burning time, or at least the pitch channel. Also we are interested in minimizing H202 fuel consumption and it sure would be a help flying a smoother q at low q.

This was more difficult on this airplane but the same problem was apparent on ship no. 3. The amplitude didn't get as large, and it wasn't as bothersome, but you have two things going there, the BCS inputs through the control system, and also your automatic trim helps you out. Also this pitch oscillation was worse in the airplane than it was on the simulator.

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

P.C.: I have no additional comments.

P.C.: I have no accurate way to assess the drift from the ground track other than guidance from NASA 1.

B. Describe corrective control inputs applied to change the heading.

P.C.: I'm a little dim on this thing, but I do believe I was correcting a sideslip subsequent to shutdown, because I was somewhat late turning ^·y on for heading reference. Power off, I didn't try to do anything except keep the heading locked on the original launch heading, or the original launch heading plus small corrections that I got subsequent to launch. I corrected for b up until the time I went to ^·y and then I held on ^·y over the top. It was actually easier to hold the yaw down by ^·y then it was by b. Both after burnout, but before going to ^·y, and then after coming off ^·y on the way down, the b appeared to be of a greater magnitude then ^·y, unless I did turn ^·y on with about 2° of b still showing because that's what I picked up right away when I went back to b presentation.

C. Estimate length of time the airplane was controlled within planned limits in pitch and roll attitude.

P.C.: I was impressed rather markedly with the fact that once I got down to less then 10° of q , I was never again outside the required limits on pitch and roll, until such time as I deliberately did so after passing Cuddeback.

D. Rate pilot task to perform the tracking mission.

q 1 , f 1 , y 1.5-2 .

P.C.: I assume this is for over the top. It did real well on pitch so I'd rate it very close to 1, roll no problem, and yaw I'd rate as shown.

E. Describe and rate the pilot task to perform the reentry.

1. Initial phase of the reentry q 2 , f 1 , y 1 1/4 .

2. Terminal phase of the reentry q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: Initial part of the reentry, I'd rate pitch as shown. I just had a terrible time getting that steadied. Roll wasn't any problem. Yaw was less difficult than it was on top so I guess that would be about as shown, I still had to work a little bit to hold it down.

In the terminal phase things quieted down so that I can rate the task as shown.

F. During the reentry how did maximum values in An, Hdot, a, q, match the simulator?

P.C.: Hdot didn't seem to jive with what we got off the simulator.

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

P C : Yes

P.C.: I guess I'd have to say that the roll hold and the automatic trim on the MH-96 system makes it a less difficult task flying the outbound climb track. To get the same advantage on this airplane I'd at least turn on pitch RAS well before engine burnout. Aside from that I'd say, only the pitch difficulty establishing 20° angle of attack was different, than with ship no. 3. The rest, directional, and subsequent motions of minimal nature were almost the same.

B. Compare flight profile and controllability with the simulator.

P.C.: On this flight the planned altitude profile was followed very closely, indicating excellent agreement with the simulator.