P.C.: Prelaunch checkoff was accomplished without incident other than these values we got on the inertial rate of climb. It doesn't seem like much but it was a good strong 50 ft/sec and then it seemed to work its way back up to between 25 and 50 ft/sec rate of descent, prior to launch. With the scale being nonlinear when you get up to 700 to 800 ft/sec, either climb or descent, which I use a good bit for cross checks during the burn portion, why it naturally makes a lot of difference.

I made my SAS check during the turn so the yaw may have cut out but it didn't, none of them dropped out.

B. Was the launch accomplished without incident?

P.C.: The launch was without incident other than going to 100% thrust for 7 seconds. I didn't and I'm sure I wouldn't have noticed this until after I was established on theta, so it was a good thing I got NASA l's call. I went right by the throttle stop, or the gate for 75% thrust.

The angle of attack didn't seem too difficult to get onto, a little more difficult than I would have imagined but heading was easy to hold. Coming back on power was no problem, I didn't even have to look at it. When NASA 1 called that I was at 100% I just kept the throttle handle inboard and came back till I heard it click, looked down, and it was there.

P.C.: Here again the profile looked real good. Cross checking the Hdot with altitude it seemed to come out just about on the money. We got on theta just about on schedule and the 70,000 foot checkpoint came about on time with the right rate of climb, if you subtracted this increment we had prior to launch. I was indicating about 800 ft/second climb and I should have been indicating about 700 ft/second. With the 100% thrust for awhile we probably did have a higher rate of climb and it was indicating the correct rate of climb, or nearly so.

B. Was any change noted in the directional control characteristics during the tracking run?

P.C.: There were no changes in the directional control characteristics.

C. Rate the piloting task during the tracking run.

q 2.5 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

P.C.: Up to burnout, theta was probably about 2-2 1/2, I didn't seem to have hardly any problem at all in roll and yaw. There didn't seem to be any tendency for it to go off in either direction.

P.C.: The 90° left bank seemed very easy to control in pitch. It was better than the simulator but of course we were on high gain on the pitch mode. I got adverse yaw, rolling into the turn both initiating the roll and also stopping the roll.

The same comments apply for the 60° right bank.

B. Rate the pilot control task.

P.C.: 90° left bank q 2.5 , f 2 , y 3.5 .

60° right bank q 2.5 , f 2 , y 3.5 .

C. Compare the airplane response with the simulator during the "yaw damper off" portion of the flight. Rate the pilot control task.

q 1.5 , f 2.5 , y 4 .

P.C.: During the "yaw damper off" portion of the flight the airplane is very similar to the simulator. If anything it seemed to have a little more damping than the simulator. In fact, I'd say it had a good deal more damping, but this might well be the fact that the inputs I was making on the airplane were less than on the simulator.

Also, the force on the control handle required to roll the airplane seems a lot less in the airplane than it does in the simulator. For that reason it seems a lot easier to establish a roll rate in the airplane. In fact, it seems real effortless to bank over and stop and it's almost deceptive in that I suppose you don't realize what kind of roll rate you're building up or how much yaw you're getting into the thing. In pitch it seems like there's just as much effort to make a correction and the forces on the rudders seem as high as on the simulator. I may be imagining things but it seems like it's a lot easier to disturb laterally.

Dampers off ratings are just airplane wise and not comparing it with the simulator.

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

P.C.: The approach and landing were accomplished without incident.