2. X-15 radios - worked fine. We got a check from Beatty and Beatty came in loud and clear on both 286.8 and 279.9; however, it wasn't as loud as from Edwards, but was satisfactory.

3. APUs - No comment.

4. Damper system - worked satisfactorily. There was no cutout on the damper system.

5. Flow direction sensor - The alpha and beta sensors were right up there.

6. Inertial platform system - was OK.

7. Launch space positioning - was excellent.

8. Launch transients (q, f, y) - No launch transients; very little roll off on launch.

9. Engine start - was OK except during prelaunch when we got the indication that the idle cooling was coming to an end; but this was just a nomenclature and we were just getting a check so there was no real trouble spots there. The cooling problem that we had in the airplane for our mixing chambers and also for the cockpit was the same that we experienced on No. 2 when it was flying on this particular B-52 on the last flight; so we knew what the trouble was there. Its nothing in the airplane itself. Right after the B-52 takeoff, a chase commented that one of the stabilizers was about a degree off. Was it the left? Right before drop I stated that both were right on. This was after I got APU's going.

10. Unforeseen incidents - No unforeseen incidents.

2. q control - Theta control was real good. Theta vernier came right on. We held 10 to 9° angle of attack and got on profile and held it. There was no trouble in any of this phase of the operation. No mismatch between the theta vernier and the ball - both worked very well. The theta compared very favorably with what we were reading off the ball.

3. Controllability during speed run - (2800 up to 4300) No control problem experienced. The pushover was right on profile and no trouble holding this profile. No bad stability aspects concerned with the powered configuration.

At 77,000, a = 0°, speed brakes open - there were no stability problems. The airplane was just as solid as a rock. Naturally, we had our dampers on at this time at a hi-lo-hi setting.

3a. Rate control task - q 1.5 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

4. Altitude profile versus simulator - I feel that it might have been just a little high on thrust; maybe a couple of hundred pounds higher than what we were on the simulator because our cross check going through 70,000 with our vertical velocity checked excellently as we were pitching over on our 0 g profile; however, at shutdown we were just a little higher, but still on profile, than we were in the simulator. I say on profile, because normally after we shut down in the simulator we have to work our way back up to 80,000, and on this I got to 80,000 and then I had to actually work a little from going over this 81, 82,000 that I finally attained.

5. Unforeseen incidents _ There were no unforeseen incidents during the boost phase.

2. Roll maneuvers - We weren't shooting for any particular bank angle, but we were shooting for a bank angle that we could monitor our Hdot, and the ability to do this will outrate everything.

left bank q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

right bank q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

The main thing we are flying here is controlling Hdot and this is a very easy task. There is no difference between left bank and right bank. "Does Hdot lag?" No, the Hdot doesn't lag. It's very responsive. I wouldn't say it was better than q; however, it depends on what you are using each one for. You use one to get on the other; we use Hdot to increase or decrease the dynamic pressure. There is more lag in dynamic pressure than in Hdot. The two of them together, make a very good combination. As a good example, if you are coming back in and you want to hold around 600 lbs of q and a pretty high Hdot, you can just set up a rate like we did in the simulator, and get about 200 to 300 fps descent and hold that until you set down and then pull up on it. You probably have to reach q a little early (lead the dynamic pressure a little bit), otherwise you might go past it.

3. Airplane response to rudder pulse - With the damper out, the situation with the yaw and the roll dampers and the ASAS off, a right rudder pulse generated hardly any b maneuvering in the airplane but just a little slight roll-off from side-to-side, very small cycling; the frequency wasn't too short anywhere from half to three-fourths of a second. "Would you say that you had the normal amount of rudder input?" No, I would say probably a little less. I was looking around for the field to land when I put it in. At the time I wished I had put in a larger one, but I didn't want to take the time to go back and do another one. We generated a little bit of roll in this and so I decided I would just go ahead and feel how this one was and turn it back on. It wasn't a very big pulse, but it handled better than we experienced in the simulator. We must have been down about 4° I guess - we were sailing back to the Base.

As far as the control task after recovery from rudder pulses there was no real control task.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

4. Glide energy management versus simulation - Appeared to be right on - the boost, the constant altitude, and the glide back seemed to be an image of what was on the simulator.

5. Approach and landing - were normal; however, coming in for the approach on my 270 around 40,000 ft, indicating about 310 and just subsonic, I experienced quite a bit of buffeting in the airplane - much more than I had experienced in the past at this same envelope. The airplane seemed to want to tuck a little to the left and I used a little aileron to bring it back in and snap it back over. At the time I wasn't really concerned about it, we had experienced buffeting in the past; my only concern was, it seemed to be more of a magnitude and the oscillations in roll and also in yaw seemed to be much more pronounced. On landing, we found that the forward portion of the left hand tip pod had extended itself and was sitting out in the breeze, so I think that this is what it was.