2. Maintain 2g until q = 30°, maintain q = 30°.

3. Pushover to zero g.

4. Reduce thrust to » 80% (Pc » 500 psi).

5. Roll to 80° left bank.

6. Increase a to » 20°, (5g maximum). Modulate throttle to maintain 4800 ft/sec.

7. Burnout - turn as required to vector to Edwards. Reduce a to approximately 8°.

7a. Speed brakes out.

8. Disengage yaw damper - perform dv pulse at pilot's discretion.

9. Reengage yaw damper.

10. Disengage yaw, yar damper - perform dv pulse at pilot's discretion.

11. Reengage yaw damper.
 
 

P.C.: I have no comment on the launch or pre-launch operation. The rotation was real good.

2. How well was 2g rotation held?

P.C.: I got the airplane rotated to 15°a to make sure I was going to keep 12° as the transonic trim change came through. It held pretty much at 11°, 12°a all the way.

3. Describe and rate the pilot control task to acquire climb attitude.

q 3 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: There wasn't any problem in controlling the airplane at that point, except continually pulling the nose back and I'd give pilot ratings as shown.

P.C.: During the climb to 70, 000 feet, I felt I was right on the planned profile.

2. Note any difficulties or distractions during the climb.

P.C.: When I got to 30°q I made a sharp pushover to zero g. I got a good oscillation for about one cycle and then I damped it out myself. The oscillation was a little unexpected but I think I trimmed and pushed at the same time and it a11 came in at once. We have a real slow trim rate on the simulator which does not match the airplane at all.

3. Rate pilot task during climb. q 3.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

4. Rate pilot task during pushover to zero g. q 2.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

5. Comment on any difficulties in acquiring zero angle of attack.

P.C.: I didn't think to check the angle of attack. I may have looked at it but zero g was holding real good so I didn't have any problem with it at all.

6. Rate pilot task during roll maneuver. q 2.5 , f 2.5 , y 2 .

P.C.: There was no problem performing the rolling maneuver except I seem to recall now that I rolled in steps. I was looking for this sideslip that I expected during the roll and I think I rolled over, hesitated and then rolled some more. It might show up on the data. I'm sure I must have gotten to at least an 80° bank angle. During the roll there wasn't any problem in pitch and I'll rate the maneuver as shown.

P.C.: I had plenty of time to look at the engine and got a good reading of 590 psi chamber pressure. I pulled the throttle back to just below 500 psi which I guess was around 8O% thrust with no problem at all.

2. Was there difficulty in reaching for the throttle?

P.C.: I had put my hand on the throttle quite a little bit ahead of time to make sure I had it there and then rolled into a turn and up on angle of attack.

3. Comment on the task of acquiring 20°a. Was "g" limit reached?

P.C.: I got to 16°a on the gage and checked the g meter which was at 4.0g. Knowing that I was a little low on altitude, I figured that q would be up and I could afford to stop at 16°a and 4g because q was going to go higher, based on the simulator runs. I don't think it quite matched the simulator, but it did go a little bit higher as I accelerated. The simulator showed that if I went to 18° or 20°a, I couldn't accelerate, so I didn't really think that I was going to accelerate this time with the throttle where it was.

4. How well do you feel planned velocity was held prior to burnout?

P.C.: In the last 3 or 4 seconds before burnout speed had increased up to 5000 ft/sec. I guess it was right at 5000 ft/sec that I burned out. I was about to reach out and pull the throttle back a little bit when it quit,

5. Rate and comment on overall pilot control task during the interval, between power reduction to 80% and burnout. q 2.5 , f 2.5 , y 3 .

P.C.: The airplane was easier to control in pitch than the simulator. 1 rate the control task as shown.

6. Were there any burnout transients?

P.C.: There were no transients at burnout.

7. Was there a control system limit cycle noted?

P.C.: There was no control system limit cycle.

q 2.5 , f 2.5 , y 4 .

P.C.: Other than the switching problems associated with SAS not working quite right, everything went along smooth. I got the pulses hands-off, and with the damper off, and I'd rate the controllability as shown.

2. Discuss the controllability of the aircraft at 8°a with speed brakes out.

P.C.: There didn't seem to be any problem controlling the airplane. There was enough q at this speed to take care of the sideslip. It looked like it was neutral to slightly positive damping. I got some roll along with the directional motion, but I wouldn't say it was more than ±5° bank angle.

3. Discuss any unusual or distracting circumstances during flight at 8°a with speed brakes out.

P.C.: I have no comment other than the low directional damping.

4. Discuss and rate the reaction of the aircraft to the pulses with the yaw damper off. q 2.5 , f 2.5 , y 4 .

P.C.: The aircraft responded real quickly to the pulses and it seemed to be good steady-state with a small measure of damping. I can't estimate how much it was, but it didn't seem to be creating any problem. It was noticeably damping and I'11 rate the controllability as shown. As far as pulling up to 10°a, I don't think there would be any problem going to 10° with the yaw damper off, but it might have degraded shortly above that level.

5. Discuss the energy management situation during glide to high key. Were ground callouts adequate?

P.C.: The energy management from the ground was good with no problem finding the field when I got straightened out looking for it.

6. Were SAS transients discernible during the manipulation of the yaw SAS channel?

P.C.: I didn't feel any yaw transients when I shut SAS off, although when I did , I could feel the "clunks" in the servos, but it didn't give me any transients.

P. C.: There were no problems at all in the landing, with the exception, right at flare, I applied too much nose-up trim. I think I did this on the last flight too because just about the time the flaps were full down and I was level, I had to push forward to keep the nose down, to keep from ballooning. On this flight, after I touched down, I looked at the trim and I was right around zero or within 2° or 3° dh below zero.

On the flight before I was trimmed to 5° or 7° dh nose up. I don't know why the difference, but both this time and last time I had to push the nose down to land.

2. Was a spot landing attempted?

P.C.: A spot landing was attempted and I guess I was maybe 1000 feet long and came in a little bit faster than the last flight.

3. Discuss any unusual or distracting situations during the flight.

P.C.: No comment.

4. Discuss the differences between the flight and the simulator runs.

P.C.: The flight and the simulator seemed to match up real close the last day of running on the simulator, but didn't match up very close for the previous three or four days. I don't know why the simulator always shows us one good day but doesn't ever match the maps we draw.

5. Discuss your most reliable source of information during the flight.

P.C.: I don't know which would be the most reliable source of information. I was using the altimeter as a cue at 53,000 feet. I think perhaps I rely mostly on the angle of attack indication on the a needle and the q vernier. I think without these two the whole profile would get shot. After getting the 12°a, and the 30° pitch attitude, and the time for zero pushover, I used the altimeter most to give me cues all along the line. If I was on altitude then speed was close enough to where I could control it when I got out to 4,000 to 4,500 ft/sec.

6. Discuss your most frequently used source of information during the flight.

P.C.: The altitude was probably used as frequently as anything and angle of attack probably about the same. Also, the artificial horizon is used as much as anything else. I think without that it would be pretty difficult to get a good profile, especially where you are relying on the simulator so much. Frankly, it has reached the point where I don't even look out the cockpit until after burnout has occurred. I just go by the 3-axis ball and the indicators in the cockpit.

7. Can you suggest improvements that could be made either in the cockpit or in the support procedures that would ease the work load on the pilot during a flight such as the one you have just completed?

P.C.: I don't know of anything you could put in the cockpit that would help any more. I got one check on the q meter on the way up at a low setting, to give me an indication how it was going and it seemed to be real good. I think it was around 500 q when I checked it. I was going to check it again later on where I expected to see 600 q. About the same time I got to 70, 000 feet and realized shortly after that I was going low, I knew then that q would be up enough so I wouldn't have to worry about getting at least 600 q. I felt like I got about 800 q during the temperature run.