P.C.: The pre-launch checkout was normal.

B. Was engine start normal? Was 75% thrust attained easily?

P.C.: Engine start was not normal. I had a malfunction on the second-stage igniter so had to reset and try again.

You know we have a marker on the throttle for 75% and I was right on that marker, but according to chamber pressure on telemetry -- they said I was about 92% thrust. On climbout I'm watching everything else but the chamber pressure.

C. Compare rotation to 10°a for "ventral off" and "ventral on" configurations.

P.C.: There was absolutely no difference.

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

The pilot task here was the same old story. This is pretty straight forward. The only thing that really got me mixed up was the inputs NASA 1 was giving me, although our radio trouble probably contributed to this. For awhile I was trying to decide whether to believe my inertial gauges or NASA 1. I'd rate the pilot task as shown.

E. How was thrust level determined? (Throttle position or Pc)

P.C.: Thrust level was determined mainly from throttle position. Unless I get a callout from the ground during this portion of the flight plan I'm watching everything but chamber pressure.

P.C.: The climb profile was similar to the simulator runs and I feel the simulator gave a good indication of what the flight profile was going to be.

B. Compare controllability at 2° - 3°a "ventral off," with "ventral on" configuration.

P.C.: I would say that with ventral off I probably had more of a residual oscillation in yaw, but this wasn't even large enough to make a change in pilot rating -- maybe 1/2 a rating. At no time did I have to turn the yaw damper back on because of poor stability.

C. Were any unusual handling characteristics noted at the low angle of attack?

P.C.: While I was at a negative angle of attack I wasn't watching b, but I'm sure if I had had any large b oscillations I would have noticed them. Roll control at this damper setting was fine. The only concentration required was at launch, and just getting the airplane settled down.

D. Was H-dot » 100 ft/sec difficult to achieve and maintain? How accurately do you feel this was accomplished? ± -50 ft/sec.

P.C.: The climb profile was not difficult to maintain. When NASA l told me I was in a nose-down position and to pull up, I was reading H-dot » 50 ft/sec which wasn't even enough to disturb the inertial altitude meter. I was holding q and Mach number pretty steady on this flight.

E. Comment on response of engine and aircraft when thrust reduction was made. Were any thrust transients noted?

P.C.: I had received the power reduction callout from NASA 1 when going through 2,900 ft/sec and everything indicated the profile to be good. I just kept what I had and at 3,600 ft/sec pulled back on the thrust. At around 3,800 ft/sec, around 20° dive brake was extended.

It appeared to me the Mach number steadied to 3,950 ft/sec here, but q at this time was about 1,300 psf. I eventually went up to around 4,150 ft/sec and q appeared to be steadied down on 1,500 psf. The last indication of q I had going through 117 seconds, about 1,550 psf.

I think I can say I held pretty constant conditions for about 25 seconds. I had intended to go to burnout on this heat run, but after checking the clock, I pulled up to gain altitude for the rest of the flight plan.

Just as I had initiated this pullup, we went to burnout. I don't think we gained too much altitude. I got a call from NASA 1 and it appeared we were overflying the base.

F. Compare response of the aircraft to throttling engine with the response "ventral on."

P.C.: There is no difference between the two configurations.

G. Were trim transients noted during speed brake deployment?

P.C.: I didn't notice any trim transients.

H. Rate and evaluate aircraft handling qualities during climb.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: My inertial indication showed a negative 50 ft/sec rate of climb and this wasn't much. In fact, it wasn't enough to make a change in the inertial altitude, or velocity. I pulled up to just above zero rate of climb and then burned out. I looked at the q meter and it was up to 1,550 psf. I don't think we went above this value.

I'd estimate that we got about 25 seconds of good steady-state conditions.

B. Estimate ^·V 200, ^·a ± 0.5°, H-dot 50 , maintained during heating run.

P.C.: Angle of attack was about 2°. I checked the a gage several times during the run and it was indicating about 3°a. a varied about 1/2° during the steady state run.

Velocity varied from about 3,950 to 4,150 ft/sec. I don't think I got as high as 4,200 ft/sec.

C. Evaluate and rate "ventral off" flight at low a (i.e., a » 3°) during heating run. q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I couldn't see any difference. I was flying with the yaw damper on so I don't think this is a real honest evaluation and I'd rate it as shown.

D. Do you feel q meter was giving valid readings during heating run? How did it compare with ground callouts?

P.C.: I didn't receive any ground callouts, but the q readings were very similar to the simulator values.

E. Did speed brake retraction result in any unusual response from the aircraft?

P.C.: I didn't notice a thing. You can't make real fast retractions with your speed brakes.

P.C.: Actually there was no real control task. There was no change in b. As far as roll-angle was concerned, I did not need to put in any roll inputs. There was little residual yawing oscillation that didn't seem to have anything to do with roll. As there was no real pilot task at all, I'll rate the airplane response as shown.

B. Comment on response of aircraft to rudder pulse at a = 10°.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I did a pulse at between 8° and 10°a, but I don't think the airplane response was any different than the one at 2°a. I will rate the airplane as shown.

C. Comment on response of aircraft to rudder pulse at a = 14°.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I didn't get a rudder pulse at 14°a.

D. Compare airplane response between the rudder pulse at » 5°a with speed brakes in, and with speed brakes out. Rate pilot control task.

q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: Angle of attack wasn't at 10° with speed brakes in. Everything I did from then on was a pushover to lose altitude and get into the field. I did , coming back down, get some pulses that were over 5°a. You do a rudder pulse and the airplane just seemed to slowly oscillate.

I would rate the airplane response as shown.

E. Discuss the general handling qualities of the aircraft at the above attitudes and speed brake configurations.

P.C.: I would compare the handling qualities to the F-104 as a good classic example. The F-104 will sit there and oscillate a little even with the yaw dampers on. It surely isn't divergent.

F. Discuss the handling qualities of the aircraft at Mach < 2.0. Rate the pilot control task. q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: When I put my speed brakes in to make my turn to the field, I was decelerating past Mach 2. I would rate the pilot task here as shown.

P.C.: Not a bit.

B. Could "RAS" operation be detected from the cockpit when the aircraft was disturbed?

P.C.: No, except that I saw little wisps of smoke come by the canopy.

C. Was the aircraft disturbed at all by the operation of "RAS?"

P.C.: No, it was not.

B. Was ground control adequate?

P.C.: It was adequate from the standpoint of the few inputs I heard. The ground control was certainly not adequate during the climb. If I had taken ground control cues I believe I would have ended up high on the profile.

C. Comment on any ground to air communications problems during the flight.

P.C.: Ground to air communications were poor. I would rate them about 2 x 2.

P.C.: Yes.

B. Rate pilot task during approach and landing. q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

P.C.: I would rate them as shown.

C Was a spot landing accomplished?

P.C.: Yes, I had my eye on the two-mile marker and I touched down a little before this point.

P.C.: I feel, from the heating standpoint, I obtained the data, but I didn't accomplish all that we were after on the ventral-off control studies.

B. In your opinion, what factors were detrimental to the intent of this mission?

P.C.: I would like to have had about 50 miles more range. On the control studies we were a little late getting started. I was a few miles in toward the base which makes a difference at the terminal end. Pulling up to higher angles of attack and getting the data would result in over flying the base. We sacrificed this but in doing so we penalized ourselves on the mission. Whereas, if we had launched about 30 to 50 miles further out, I feel we would have been better off.

C. To what extent was ground guidance used during the:
 

P.C.: I don't feel the ventral-off configuration is any worse than the basic airplane. It's true when we reduce roll damper gains on these flights we are probably going to have to go to some other means of disturbing the airplane. You may find yourself over on your back with a rudder kick with little or no roll damping.