P.C.: I made a call that I was indicating 10° nose-down on the ball. This was because the adjustment knob on the ball had been bumped, probably by me during the flight out. After I had called that I was reading nose-down, I noticed the little arrow was off center so I recentered it and it looked okay then. The ball wasn't jiggling or anything.

B. Was the launch accomplished without incident?

P.C.: The launch was accomplished pretty much without incident as far as I was concerned. The B-52 engine went out just as I went to pump idle and because I haven't heard enough of them, or something, I probably heard the engine but figured it was just pump idle coming on. It seemed a little rough, but the chamber pressure came up normally, and when the chase airplane called that the B-52 engine had gone out it didn't register with me. I was ready to go.

P.C.: It seemed like an awfully long time before I started to come up on q, not from the null indicator, but it seemed like I was riding in level flight, or at about 10° a for an awfully long time before starting up. Once again q looked just awfully steep. When I looked out the window it looked awfully steep.

We started off to the left according to the radar track and NASA 1 asked for a right turn back to heading. I had about 10°, maybe 15° of roll in for a while and I think we probably came out of this crosswind at the same time, so these corrections combined to give us an over correction in our track.

Timing checks came out real good and the cross-checks, as well as I could get them on velocity and altitude, were running real good during the burning portion. I pushed over to zero g at 2800 fps and NASA 1 was counting through 43 seconds at the time. This was about a second slow, but it was about the same as in the simulator, it seemed like you'd be counting just a little slow. At 65 seconds, and well at 4300 fps, I went to 3° a. In the simulator I had been trimming in about -7° of stabilizer which gave me 3° a so I did this in the airplane just to see if it would come out, and it works out real good. I think that's a real good way to pick up a low a by just going to a nominal trim setting and let it stabilize out. Then if you have to make a correction you can go easily to the final setting. At any rate its a good way to get in the ball park and then you can make your corrections from there pretty easily.

I started to come back on the throttle at 5100 fps indicated and by the time I was back in the détente on the throttle I was just about at 5200 fps. I never did notice it going over 5200 fps, we can look on the film to see if it did, but I don't think it did. I looked up and checked the altimeter and we were about 109,000 feet which was about 5,000 feet higher than our simulator runs had come out. But as I noted in the post flight meeting it was very difficult to tell exactly what things were reading because of the reflection from the sun on my face plate.

As I said before, it wasn't any big deal, you can fly profiles with it, but it seemed to slow down my cross-checks to the point it seemed I wasn't getting around my cross-check as fast as I would have liked. I'd look at the instrument, I could see the instrument with no problem, I could see the needle with no problem, but it was difficult to see the numbers and the little markings on the instrument and determine exactly where it was pointing. It was just a little difficult with all these reflections going around within the face plate. I think these conditions today were probably as bad as you can get into with the sun, in that the sun was low enough and our pitch angle was high enough so that we weren't pointing directly at the sun but were just pointing below it so the sun was coming right in on through the windows. In addition this face plate has a thin gold coating layer for the heating element and that impairs the light rays just enough to where it causes reflection, or refraction, or whatever it is. It's kind of like looking through a one-way mirror, it impairs your vision a little bit, but not to the point where you can't fly the airplane or make your cross-checks if required.

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

P.C.: During the speed run I didn't notice any problem at all in the directional control characteristics, I was watching the sideslip indicator and it didn't seem to go off center at all, or very much. When it did, it didn't seem to be any problem at all, just tapping the rudder slightly or maybe even thinking about tapping the rudder would probably be sufficient.

C. Rate the piloting task during the speed run.

q 2 , f 1.5 , y 1 .

P.C.: During the speed run I would rate the control task as shown.

P.C.: I don't think I got to 15° angle of attack with the speed brakes in. (Internal data shows amax = 19° immediately before speed brakes were extended). With the higher energy NASA-l had called to delay the increase in a and by the time we were peaking out, he had called speed brakes out anyway. So all these comments about airplane response with the roll and yaw dampers off may be with about 20° of speed brakes. The periods of oscillation seemed to be longer than I had seen in the simulator. The magnitude of the oscillations is difficult to tell because I'm not sure how big of an input I made in the airplane or whether it was the same as with the simulator, but I think I got out to 2° on b on one of the pulses and the airplane seemed to be well damped. The airplane seemed to be well damped and I'd say the period was in the order of 1.5 to 2 seconds, thinking back on it now. The airplane may not be better damped than the simulator, what I mean is the period of the mode is longer. It seems like not nearly so much of a task to control the airplane as it does the simulator.

I think I let the airplane go about one oscillation following the pulse before starting to control it with the b-dot technique, which just works like a charm. I used b-dot to slow it down and from there on didn't make any more pulse inputs, I just kept it centered using either rudders or b-dot to keep the yaw needle centered.

(Q. To what extent are outside visual cues a help in controlling the undamped airplane?)

P.C.: I don't think the visual, or outside, or peripheral aids make that much difference because when I'm concentrating on holding a b, or yaw or roll, I'm not paying any attention at all to the windows or what I'm seeing out the windows. I think visual cues and the vertical needle, the sideslip needle, are too different. When I started using b-dot it took a while to get on to it, to know when to time the control input, and how much of an input. I think if you also got an opposite outside cue, you're starting your learning curve all over again. You could probably do it, you could learn to do it.

On the simulator using b-dot technique to control your sideslip seems to work, even down to well below 10° a, almost down to 5°, which is amazing to me, because it would seem to me at that low angle of attack, you're getting down low enough where your roll rate term should be controlled, or your yaw should be controlled, merely by a vertical surface.

(Q. Comparing the airplane versus the simulator. Were you aware of accelerations or did you fly according to lateral acceleration?)

P.C.: Well, you can't disregard accelerations as you can in the simulator. Like, you can sit in the simulator and watch b swing back and forth for a while before even thinking about doing something. But, as far as the acceleration cue aiding you in making a control correction - here again I think the technique I was using required my using the same visual cues that I had seen in the simulator, which were the vertical needle and the attitude indicator. The accelerations themselves may bring your attention to an incipient motion, but I don't think they really help you, because by the time you feel the acceleration, you should have had your control input in already.

B. Rate the pilot control task with roll and yaw dampers off.

Speed brakes in: q 1.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

Speed brakes 20°: q 1.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: With roll and yaw dampers off, speed brakes in, I'd rate it as shown. With 20° speed brakes I'd rate it about the same there, too. To be honest I didn't really see too much difference with the speed brakes out, or in, but here again this test with 20° speed brakes was generally at a higher angle of attack than with the speed brakes in. I think NASA-l called speed brakes out so I put them out and came up on a at the same time.

It seemed to me there was an area (14° or so) where it's hard to keep it right on the angle of attack. I'm not sure whether I just wasn't trimmed out but I had tried to come up on a with trim alone to preclude getting any inputs I didn't want. I saw 17° on the a indicator but it seems like there is an area there where it hangs up for a while and then shoots right on through.

C. Rate the longitudinal control task with the pitch damper off?

q 2.5 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

P.C.: Longitudinal control task with the pitch damper off was actually about the same as in the simulator because I was at a higher q than we had worked with in the simulator. The frequency was kind of high but I think the magnitude of the oscillations were smaller for a given input. I would rate the controllability as shown above.

D. Compare the airplane response with the simulator during the dampers off portions of the flight.

P.C.: I think the airplane response is very similar. The frequency of the oscillation is slower in the airplane. I think it's easier to control in the airplane, or it requires less attention, or less work to control in the airplane than it does in the simulator.

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

P.C.: Approach from high key and landing was without any incident at all.