2. Maintain 2g until q = 20°.

3. Pushover to "g" = .1 (a» 2°).

4. Roll to 80° right bank.

5. Increase a slowly to 10° (gmax = 4.0).

6. Reduce to 40%T (or as required).

7. Modulate speed brakes if required to maintain constant conditions.

8. Burnout - turn as required to vector to Edwards (maintain a» 10 ).

9. At q = 10°, pushover-pullup to a» 8°, 0°, 10°.

10. Peak altitude.

11. Disengage and reengage yaw channel twice (no control inputs).

12. Perform pushover-pullup maneuvers (a»~ 10°, 0°, 10°) as space positioning permits.

P.C.: There wasn't anything unusual in the climbout.

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

P.C.: There were no differences between simulator and actual climb profile.

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

P.C.: Pitch angle was held very closely.

C. Compare timing of pushover point, with simulator runs.

P.C.: Timing on the pushover point was exactly the same -- 20 seconds and 20°q. Everything matched well with the simulator. As far as I could tell, I held q all the way from 20 seconds to just about 32 seconds. q was on, and there was no trouble at all.

D. What were indicated An and a readings during time at zero g?

P.C.: In the simulator I was doing 1°a and O.1g normal acceleration. This was giving me a pushover somewhere around 63,000 feet, and I was trying to roll in nose high and settle on down. On the airplane, I pushed over to a little less than zero on g and zero a, and it still took me high.

E. Estimate lateral control effectiveness and stability to perform bank maneuver. Rate the pilot task q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: The lateral control effectiveness seemed to be a little sensitive, compared with the simulator. I don't say it was too sensitive, but it handled much better than the simulator did for a small roll input. The stability here appeared real good going through the roll maneuver and I didn't have any problem with that at all.

F. Describe in detail the pilot control task required to fly the heating run in a banked attitude. Rate the pilot task q 3 , f 2 , y 3 .

P.C.: The pilot task during the accelerated part of the turn I will rate as shown. Somewhere during the run I hit the trim wheel after I got to 4g and I increased to 5g. The first time it happened it was quite slow. The second time it was real fast, and on the second time also I might have hit the trim button. Normal acceleration increased a lot faster than the simulator had shown me and I think I artificially did something there. Also I got a yaw, or actually a steady-state sideslip, and I started playing with that somewhere in the turn. The yaw came in while I was doing the roll because I got in a little sideslip and pushed it the wrong way to get rid of it. I felt this sideslip, but didn't see it on the needle.

G. Estimate ^·V or ^·M, ^·a,·q, H-dot maintained during the heating run .

P.C.: In the turn, I got the throttle back to somewhere around 75% thrust. The velocity at this time was about 3600 ft/sec. I had planned this because the acceleration between 3000 and 4000 ft/sec was pretty fast. I had to get the throttle started back in order to get into some positive g before I got the throttle all the way back and possibly induce a flameout. I started the throttle back at about 3500-3600 ft/sec and as velocity got up close to 4000, I then reduced thrust to 40 to 45% thrust. The next time I checked velocity it had gone over 4000. I pulled the throttle back to 30% and it remained there until burnout.

The angle of attack stayed most of the time at 10° ±1°, but on a couple of occasions it might have gotten as low as 7°. It might have gone as high as 12° with these excursions in pitch and the g's I was pulling. I might have gone up to 12°a when we hit 5g and then I pushed it over to probably about 7° or 8°a, but for the most part it was around 10°.

I couldn't check the pitch trim with the horizon because the clock was in the way and I couldn't get a good reading on q. I didn't get a chance to check the vertical velocity

P.C.: I didn't have any trouble seeing the landing area.

B. Rate the pilot task to perform the pushdown-pullup maneuvers.

P.C.: q 2 , f 1.5 , y 1.5 .

C. Describe airplane motion when yaw damping was disengaged. Did additional damper modes trip out as a result of the yaw switching?

P.C.: I didn't get any transients the first time I disengaged the yaw damper, but I got the ASAS light on with no indication that normal SAS had dropped out in pitch or roll. I reset the yaw damper and reset ASAS and still didn't get any indication from the airplane that ASAS had come on or that I'd lost normal SAS. The second time I disengaged the yaw channel I got a little tick in the system. It didn't affect the airplane, but was just a clunk in the system.

The ASAS light came on again and I still didn't notice any change in damping. I turned the yaw damper back on, ASAS off, and the airplane was just the same.

P.C.: No, I could see the base without any problem, and could get back without any help from the ground.

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

P.C.: Altitude and speed figures from ground control indicated that I was high and the airplane's system indicated I was low.

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

P.C.: Ground communications were good all the way. It was 5 x 5, really clear and strong.

P.C.: There were no non-routine events during approach and landing. I didn't get as much pitchup, however, out of the flaps as I expected because I started them down a little bit early and the airplane just pitched right up to normal landing attitude.

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

Approach q 3 , f 2 , y 2 .

Landing q 2+ , f 2+ , y 2+ .

P.C.: The approach wasn't quite as comfortable as some I've had. It was real comfortable once I got leveled out and got the gear down.

C. Was a spot landing accomplished?

P.C.: A spot landing was attempted and made.