PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE

Flight 1-52-85 Pilot:

John B. McKay

Purpose: To obtain data for the following programs:

 
1. Honeywell inertial system checkout

2. MIT Horizon Photometer

3. Air density

4. Nortronics Sky Brightness

5. RAS Modification checkout

6. Pilot Altitude Buildup
 

Launch: Delamar Lake #1 on magnetic heading 214°, SAS Hi-Lo-Hi (8-4-8), ASAS ARMED, both BCS "ON," RAS "OFF," Auto Cutoff "OFF," Ventral OFF.

Launch Point Coordinates: 37° 18' N, 114° 36' W.

Resume:

1. Launch, light engine, increase to 100% T. Rotate at 10° a ( » 2g) until q = 28°.

2. q = 28°. Maintain q = 28°.

3. Shutdown. Pushover to a = 0°. RAS "ON," Auto Cutoff "ON."

4. Peak altitude. Extend speed brakes to 20°. Maintain 0° to 20° a.

5. a = 20° - Maintain a = 20° until Hdot = -600 fps.

6. RAS "OFF."

7. Hdot = -600 fps, pushover, maintain Hdot » -450 fps, extend speed brakes to 35°. (Max reentry g » 3.0).

8. Cuddeback. Vector to High Key, speed brakes as required. Engine Master "OFF."

9. 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 - was real fine.

2. X-15 radios - I didn't have any trouble with my radios.

3. APUs - were good.

4. Damper System - was good except for the cycling we were getting.

5. Flow Direction Sensor - I would say that it was working OK.

6. Launch space positioning - was OK.

7. Launch transients (q, f, y) - I didn't feel any roll off.

8. Engine start - was normal

9 Unforeseen incidents - nothing

II. BOOST PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas, during the "power on" portion of the flight.
  1. Engine operation - was very normal.

2. q control - As far as evaluating q control, I had trouble trying to get up on angle of attack. I wasn't sure if alpha was really working or whether the airplane was just sluggish. At one time I was going to depend on NASA-l to take me precisely down the profile. The airplane acted normally as to what I wanted it to do as far as change of pitch effectiveness with the control system. So I would say that there is nothing wrong there. "Did you run out of trim by any chance?" No, I didn't run out of trim. Right after drop I pulled back on the stick and I used a lot of force, in fact, more than the simulator took. Then I cranked in some trim, I forgot what it was and then started hauling it back in. Just about the time I was thinking about putting in more trim, I got the call from NASA-l. This is one thing that really threw me off. I thought he said we were on profile so I didn't want to go over profile so that is when I eased down a little bit and forgot about any more trim. And from then on we were going a little low.

3. Low a control - We didn't run into any low a control so there is no comment on that during the boost phase.

4. Altitude profile versus simulator - We didn't come anywhere near the simulator profile. We missed it by about 30,000 ft.

5. Unforeseen incidents - I can't see any unforeseen incidents. We were getting quite a bit of pounding over the airplane during the acceleration part of it and this is just that regular banging during the heating run you know. Every time you get used to that and you don't fly that bird for some time that first one will wake you up. It is hard to tell just where it is coming from. It is just like somebody is hitting the airplane with a sledge hammer.

III. GLIDE PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas during the "power off" portion of the flight.  
1. Burnout transients - none. "What would you estimate your q at this time?" I looked at q and I don't know just how close after burnout it was but we were going down below about 50 lbs. We were still indicating, about 50 to 100 lbs. "Did that meter go flat on you anywhere?" No. The q meter seemed to operate pretty well. "You had the aerodynamic control all the way over?" Well, I didn't look at it going over the top and I don't know what it was, but I am sure it was down below 50 lbs. "Could you feel that you had aerodynamic control?" I felt I had some, but even up in the simulator at 180,000 we had enough control to be able to control anything that we wanted just so that it wasn't a large excursion.

2. Controllability in ballistic flight (RAS ON) -

q 3 , f , y .

Once I got the RAS on there it was hardly any need to put in any aerodynamic control. In fact, I actually forgot about the aerodynamic control. I was just using the ballistics. I found myself trying to be too fast on the ballistics because the RAS was handling the problem pretty well. We stayed 150,000 for quite some time. Every time I would start to put in a manual ballistic, RAS would start cutting in. And if anything I would say that we sure got a good checkout on the RAS. That is marvelous the way that thing operates. It is a good, stabilizing thing. "You realize, of course, that when you put in a manual input you automatically cut out that action from the RAS." Well, it was either that RAS beat me to it or I was late in doing it because I put in an input and shortly afterward there would be a RAS input. "Well do you think this is too tight?" No, it didn't feel too tight. The reason I say that is, I noticed this mostly in yaw, the airplane would start yawing off a little bit and then RAS would catch it after it developed some small acceleration, and then bring it back. But there was no overshoot on RAS. I was looking for another burst out the other side to catch this but it would bring it right back to what I would consider a fairly trimmed condition. "Can you rate the controllability?" I would say probably about 3. I didn't put in any control in roll so I couldn't rate that. Didn't have to, in fact. Actually I turned on RAS at about 130,000 but it may have been about 135,000. During this time I was putting in a few control movements and you could actually see the decay of the aerodynamic control. I didn't try the manual on the way up until I was over the top and started on down. I'm sure that as far as rating the aerodynamic control you would probably have maybe 4.5 or 5 as far as effectiveness because there was some positive action there, even at 151,000. "What happened to yaw?" In yaw? "Did you put any inputs in yaw? Or did RAS do them?" RAS did all of that. I didn't put in any inputs with the rudder pedals. "So you controlled mostly this pitch control?" I believe at one time on the way back down, I tried the yaw control out. This was a real good demonstration on how the aerodynamic controls just slowly decayed as you climb up in altitude and your other controls took over. "At this transition point from aerodynamic to ballistic - " It is a very broad band, like on the simulator you can use manual all the way to 220,000 if you don't start the airplane oscillating in any one mode. "Where was your transition point as you came back in? Do you remember what the q might have been?" When I got the call to turn the RAS off, I began to use aerodynamic controls. I had picked up a trim of - well I read 20° on the side arm controller and I felt I was full back trim, I just let the airplane sail back in. At one time the nose seemed to pitch down slowly so I looked over and was reading about 12° angle of attack so I eased the controls back in. This is after I turned the RAS off. So I would say that this is about the first time, somewhere under 130,000 that I began using aerodynamic. There was no transient or transition or anything as I went to each one of the modes. I took my time. I turned on pitch, then roll and then yaw and I waited a couple of seconds between each. The airplane didn't want to vibrate or go anywhere as though she was having a run-away RAS. Seemed to work pretty good.

3. Controllability during initial, and terminal reentry -

Initial q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

Terminal q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

was real good. I would rate that across the board, 2. "In initial?" Right. "In terminal?" Right. When that airplane would do something it would do it and I was doing it fast too.

4. Glide energy management versus simulation - I would say it was a little better as it always seems to come out. Always seems better than the simulator.

5. Approach and landing - was normal

6. Unforeseen incidents - nothing in particular. "You want to go into this about flaps?" Well you know that never really worried me because I was going to land anyway. Chase 4 gave the flap call out and then right after he gave it to me he said you are not getting any, I think he just jumped the gun a little bit on that. No real unforeseen incident. But, boy, that bird just seemed to get on the ground and sit there and rock. "From one gear to the other?" From one gear to the other. You don't see anything in roll do you?
 

B. Describe and rate the most adverse piloting task experienced on this flight.
  q 3.5-4 , f 3.5-4 , y 3.5-4 .


It was troublesome trying to get up on theta. I didn't have a good cue from the cockpit. Evidently I never did actually approach getting up on theta. I may have hit it one time there. I think it would have helped if Bob had come up and stated that I was on profile. In fact, this is what I was kind of counting on. In lieu of this, I would say that this is the most adverse piloting task. Although the airplane would do what you want it to do under these conditions. When he said that I was on profile or on theta, I eased over a little bit and got it down to about 4 1/2° angle of attack and the airplane seemed to respond very well to this. But as far as the piloting task here, I would rate this at about 3.5 to 4 across the board. It wasn't really good. "The overall integrated task including ground control, the whole works?" That is right. Somewhere in there I thought I had received a theta call from NASA-1, saying that I was high on profile. That is when I made my second pushover. Not a pushover but decreased angle of attack. As far as the roll or yaw, there was no problem there. It was all in theta, all in pitch. Other than that there wasn't any real adverse piloting task. The airplane does kind of what you want it to.