2. At t = 40 seconds push over to zero g.

3. At t = 60 seconds increase a to 3°.

4. At t = 74 seconds reduce to minimum thrust, modulate speed brakes to maintain slow longitudinal acceleration.

5. At t = 122 seconds - burnout - retract speed brakes and set SAS at 8-10-8. Pull up at 3g until q = 20°.

6. Perform 45° left and right rolls.

7. At t = 139 pushover to zero g.

8. Peak altitude, maintain zero g until q » 10°.

9. At t = 175 seconds reset SAS at 8-6-8, vector to high key for landing, and start to jettison, H202 "off."
 
 

P.C.: I can't think of anything, no change in the flight plan was required.

B. Note non-routine items which occurred at launch or during the initial climbout rotation.

P.C.: No non-routine situations developed. I expected a little rolloff, and I got a little rolloff.

C. Rate the pilot task to recover from launch and establish the climbout attitude. q 3 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: The main difference is the acceleration.

B. Was the headrest used?

P.C.: Yes, but actually it wasn't used until the burnout; however, I don't think the headrest was really necessary at these low thrust settings of 45% that we used on this flight. In fact, in some cases, it was a hindrance.

C. Was the sensation of an overturning rotation noted?

P.C.: No.

D. Estimate ^·q held, and rate the pilot task during the 20°q portion of the climb. q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I could say q was held pretty well, and my approaching it was somewhat easier than I experienced on the simulator.

E. Describe the engine operation upon slowing to minimum thrust. Were any airplane transient motions noted at this time?

P.C.: I did not observe the chamber pressures at this time. When I went back to 45% thrust, I could tell there was some change in thrust, but the degree did not appear to be too great. When I experienced an indication of going past my programmed velocity, I immediately checked my stop to make sure that I had not crept back up to 75%, and I was sitting right on 45%. At this time, I almost went back to minimum thrust, but to keep from an inadvertent engine shutdown, I delayed this.

I didn't experience any rough operation in the air or on the ground. Actually, you don't pick up the vibration in the cockpit unless you get a 60 cycle harmonic, I guess you might call it. It was generated from the engine, but there's no difference in vibration at 100% compared to 45%, for all you know is that the engine is running.

No, there were no airplane transients noted at this time. The airplane responded to every input. It responded very nicely in fact.

F. Estimate ^·q 1250-l650, ^·a Constant, ^·H N/C maintained during the constant q heating run.

P.C.: It appeared that a was somewhat constant in the run. I did not get a check on indicated velocity. I was watching the q, and I thought at one time that I had read a maximum of 1,500 or 1,600 q indicated. This should be correct, however, this was a transient q. Up to this maximum altitude q kept changing continually because of the higher thrust input that we had, and it was very hard to get this and maintain it, although at 3°a I did not try to get this thing to zero rate of climb.

I tried to use speed brakes and when I tried to get them back in, they wouldn't respond, although I was finally able to retract them. The a seemed to hold fairly constant. It was about 3° throughout the run.

I believe the q I saw was 1,650 psf, but according to the people on the ground I believe 1,475 was maximum.

G. Comment on the efficiency of this instrument presentation (airspeed meter) as a q indication.

P.C.: This is an airspeed meter calibrated in q and this is a very good instrument. In fact, it is a lot better instrument than having the airspeed meter just dialed to where you try to hit a certain speed -- this gives the change in q, which is just the same thing but you know what calibration you are reading. I watched it continually during the speed run. I think we should leave it in. We can refine it as much as possible, but let's leave the thing in.

H. Rate the pilot task to fly the constant q heating run. q 1.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: Once you have a set of conditions set up there is no problem whatsoever to fly this profile. We had more thrust at 45% than was anticipated, but once we set up a set of conditions all I had to do was just sit there and ride it out.

P.C.: Right after the burnout I reached down and changed SAS gain, and at this point I would like to say I think I hit the stop (setting of 10), but I may have gotten a 9 setting instead. I didn't experience any limit cycle; however, I did get a malfunction tripout when I got there. I got everything but pitch. I didn't get pitch, to my knowledge. I don't think I got pitch, but roll, yaw, and yar I did get.

I tried to get back off alternate SAS, trying to get my head around in there, I really had my hands full.

The program called for getting back to regular SAS as soon as possible. I can't particularly say just exactly when I went back to regular SAS because at this time I was trying to get back and I think I got a couple of damper channels off there when I got the call for speed brakes.

B. Comment on any limit cycle operation noted at this point in the flight. What corrective action was taken?

P.C.: I don't think that I reduced gain at all during this part of the flight. I left it at whatever setting it was on. If I decreased it, it was automatic because I did not do it intentionally.

C. Rate pilot task to perform roll evaluation. q , f , y .

What average a was maintained during this time?

P.C.: q 2.5-3.0 , f Recovery = 3-3.5, Hold = 3 , y 2-2.5 .I went to 8°a and then went into a half deflection left roll to about 45°. I was amazed at the effect of the roll. Then, when I tried to roll back it felt like I was gaining a couple 100 feet, and I was still getting calls from NASA 1 to try and get my speed brakes out again. I was going high and fast, so I rolled back and went to about zero a. I got the speed brakes out, and I got a call that eliminated the zero a work and made a right turn.

As far as the rolling evaluation, I can't say that I ran into any particular difficulty

D. Rate pilot task to fly zero g trajectory q 1.5 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 . Estimate limiting values of pitch attitude (q) experienced during this time.

P.C.: It was a very simple task to perform.

E. Estimate your position relative to Edwards upon returning to level flight.

P.C.: I came level west of Edwards and northeast of Rosamond.

P.C.: I tried to vector into my high key position. I think that was when I actually utilized my vision just as accurately, if not more so, than what ground vectoring was giving me. If I had to do without any ground vectoring I would have made a left turn and probably would have been in a better position on the downwind run in making a figure 8 and coming back in.

B. Discuss adequacy of the ground control for performance of this flight mission.

P.C.: The callouts were very useful, particularly altitude callouts, and there is one thing here that I might discuss. In the course of working on the simulator with two different people controlling; when they give me an under or over profile, there are quite a few variables I have control over. All the controller has to do is give his call, and it is very helpful because I know there are a number of things I can go through before I run out of things to do.

C. Estimate the clarity of ground to air communications throughout this flight.

P.C.: 5 x 5.

P.C.: Just before chase gave me the word to drop the ventral I felt a big kick in the back of the airplane. I thought the yaw SAS might have taken a transient or something, and then when I finally pressed the ventral it duplicated itself. At first I thought I had pushed the ventral inadvertently, because I had my hand over somewhere near it. It was exactly the same as when I felt the ventral leave the airplane. It might have been a yaw SAS input, or maybe it could have been rough air.

B. Rate the pilot task on the approach and landing.

Approach q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

Landing q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

C. Was a spot landing accomplished?

P.C.: Somewhat, yes. I wasn't using the points I was supposed to for a spot landing inasmuch as I had made so many of these emergency lake type of approaches around here and I usually use the edge of the lakebed as the key point. I just automatically went into this sort of thing. It was comfortable for me all the way around. I could have extended it if I were required to but I'm certain we can get this airplane onto a ten-thousand-foot runway.