PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE

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.

1. Launch, light engine, increase to 100% T. Rotate at 11° a until q = 30°. Heading vernier to "·y."

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.

I. PRELAUNCH AND LAUNCH PHASE A. Evaluate briefly flight performance of the following items during the prelaunch period and/or the launch maneuver.
  1. Pressure suit operation - Pressure suit operation was normal.

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°.

II. BOOST PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas, during the "power on" portion of the flight.
  1. Engine operation - During the boost phase there was no problem with the engine operation - that was very good.

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.

III. GLIDE PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas during the "power off" portion of the flight.
  1. Burnout transients - There was no problem there.

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.