Flight 1-47-74
Date: April 29, 1964
Pilot: Major Robert Rushworth
Flight Resume
Purpose: Phase II Optical Degradation Experiment and checkout of Optical Attitude Indicator.
Launch: Delamar Lake #1 on magnetic heading 214°, SAS Hi-Lo-Hi (8-4-8), ASAS ARMED, both BCS "OFF," RAS "OFF," heading vernier to "Standby," Ventral OFF.
Launch Point Coordinates: 37° 18' N, 114° 36' W.
2. q = 30°. Maintain q = 30°.
3. Pushover to O g. (Hdot » 1000 fps)
4. Extend speed brakes to 20°.
5. Shutdown at 5700 fps.
6. Increase a to » 5°. (q » 5°). Maintain a » 5° to peak altitude.
7. Nellis - Peak altitude - Maintain q and f within ±8°. (Manual A). Descend at 200 ft/sec to 70,000 ft.
8. Pahrump - Maintain q and f within ±8°. (Manual B).
9. Retract speed brakes.
10. Pilot Knob - Maintain q and f within ±8°. (Manual C).
11. 70,000 ft - Maintain 70,000 ft.
12. Cuddeback - Maintain q and f within ±8°. (Manual C). Pushover to a » 2°, vector to High Key. Speed brakes as required. Engine Master "OFF.".
13. High Key.
2. X-15 radio's - X-15 radio's were satisfactory.
3. APU's - APU's were normal.
4. SAS, ASAS - SAS and ASAS checks were normal.
5. Experiment Operation - Experiment operation was normal. It was on automatic all the way.
6. Launch space positioning - Launch space positioning was very good. We were on the track at launch.
7. Launch transients (f, y) - I didn't get to observe them in roll or sideslip because I was watching the a indication to see if it was going to respond.
8. Engine start - The engine start was very good. In fact, I really didn't pay any attention to that, except that I knew it was there.
9. Unforeseen incidents - No other problems except angle of attack being off by approximately 3°.
2. Dy operation - It was very good except for the fact that I changed it every time I got onto a new heading. Whenever my corrections were necessary and I had an offset in Dy I reset it.
3. Experiment operation - It was good all the way through the flight.
4. q control - q control was a little abnormal, in that on the pullup, when I got to zero q on the vernier I was indicating a little over 20° on the ball. I don't know why the difference because the q was right.
5. Low a control - I wasn't ever low on a this time. I did not crank out the 3° error so we went all the way with an excess of a on the climbout. I didn't see any problem at all with directional stability or dutch roll stability, either on zero angle of attack or when I was holding zero g. It was real steady.
6. Acquisition of 1st target - I made one small correction during the powered portion to get back on the track. NASA-l callout was for 1° change to the right and I made this. I did not pick this up until after the NASA-l callout came because I was watching angle of attack to see what it was doing.
7. Altitude profile versus simulator - It was just exactly what I expected to see.
8. Unforeseen incidents - The only unforeseen incidents were the ball nose and the error in angle of attack. During the climbout I looked at the mirror to check the optical view of the horizon to see if we could use this and I could only observe clouds in the distance, both during the climbout and after we came on level flight. Since the clouds had erratic tops, I could not use this as an indication of angle or attitude.
2. Experiment operation - The experiment continued to operate fine.
3. Target's 2, 3, and 4 acquisition - There was no problem getting onto the targets.
4. Glide energy management versus simulation - energy management versus simulator looked real good although I got a little low on the profile.
5. Approach and landing - They were quite normal although I got closer to the landing area than I expected. I took a quick look out and was aiming for the wrong lake.
6. Unforeseen incidents - During the glide portion there were some unusual or unforeseen incidents. The first is a continual, what I would describe as a degradation in damping in pitch. The airplane did not seem to have the pitch damping that I expected or had in the past on similar flights, or had in the past on any flights. I got the impression all the way through the glide portion of the flight that the airplane was continually flying in nose-left sideslip condition, which I think would account for the fact that I was continually going off the track to the left. I don't think I could feel it in lateral acceleration but I don't know what else would give me this feeling. I did have the impression that the airplane was flying nose left attitude and I never did get the chance to check sideslip.
The pitching oscillation that I did see didn't seem to be that fast - one cycle per second. It was a longer period and it seemed to be hunting through a null period. The damping just didn't seem to be tight at all. Airplane response was good, it was just the damping. I watched the airplane from the horizon; watched the airplane floating up and down.
The airplane acted just like it wasn't damped.
B. Describe and rate the most adverse piloting task experienced on this flight.
q 3 1/2 , f 1 1/2 , y 2 .
This would be in
the first 40 seconds, getting up onto the angle of attack and pushing over
on q,
since half of the indications that I expected to watch were not available
to me. I would rate it as shown above.