X-15 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE

 
  FLIGHT 2-41-73 Pilot - Rushworth

I. PRELAUNCH AND LAUNCH PHASE

A. Evaluate briefly flight performance of the following items during the prelaunch period and/or the launch maneuver. 1. Flow direction sensor - Appeared to work normal with the exception of the needle's being displaced in the wrong direction.

2. Launch transients (q, f, y) - No adverse launch transients.
 
 

 II. BOOST PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas, during the "power on" portion of the flight. 1. a control - There wasn't any problem with it other than the fact that I ran out of trim trying to maintain 11 degrees. I held 11 degrees for at least 17 seconds and then down to 10 degrees after 17 seconds.

2. q control - Wasn't any problem. I held that pretty close to 32 degrees for a considerable length of time and then it dropped down to about 31 degrees. This wasn't a trim problem, it was in my being a little bit late with the trim and just barely putting up with a 1 degree error. The last 20 seconds before burnout it required more nose up trim and apparently every time I trimmed I was just holding it steady.

3. Altitude profile versus simulator - Is off, I would have expected to come less than 200,000 feet on the simulator if I'd flown this profile, I don't know why, Jack went a little high on his, I don't know whether there's any correlation or not. It could be in a little bit more performance than what we have scheduled.

4. Unforeseen incidents - No unforeseen incidents.

 III. GLIDE PHASE A. Evaluate flight performance in the following areas during the "power off" portion of the flight.
  1. Burnout transients - I'm not sure but what I put in that little pitch pulse in reaching down to turn on the RAS. At the instant that I turned on yaw RAS I could feel the yaw rockets working. I turned on yaw and roll and then delayed on pitch until I got down to 2 degrees angle of attack before I put the pitch RAS on.

2. Stability in ballistic flight (RAS ON) - I'd rate that:

q 1 1/2 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 to the top of the trajectory, and for the rest of the flight: q 4 , f 2 , y 2 .

2a. Controllability in ballistic flight (BCS) -

q 4 , f 2 1/2 , y 2 1/2 .

3. Describe and rate the tasks of:

a. Attaining attitudes for Star Tracker experiment -

q 3 , f 2 , y 2 .

b. Maintaining attitudes for Star Tracker experiment -

q 4 , f 3 , y 3 .

4. Controllability during initial and terminal reentry -

Initial q 4 , f 2 , y 2 .

Terminal q 2 , f 2 , y 2 .

5. Glide energy management versus simulation - Looked like it had a little bit more velocity when I came off the bottom then what the simulation showed. It's hard to evaluate that because I came out so far away from the track.

6. Approach and landing - I had more than enough energy when I came over the field and maintained a little higher than normal airspeed, using speed brakes all around, and a little bit closer pattern.

7. Unforeseen incidents - No unforeseen incidents.
 

 B. Describe and rate the most adverse piloting task experienced on this flight.
  q 4 , f 2 1/2 , y 2 1/2 .
  The most adverse piloting task during the flight was trying to maintain the Star Tracker requirements of 30 degrees roll and 4 degrees pitch. I rated that before.

When I got half way through the turn, down about Mach 2, the airplane felt very much similar to a dutch roll and I think most of the action was in the roll out, so it appeared to be a residual roll oscillation from the damper and I didn't get to shut the roll damper off so I turned the yaw damper off and gave it a pulse. The airplane responded normally to the rudder pulse and then at the end of it I just took hands off and watched the airplane with a residual roll and yaw and it continually diverged to the right, out of trim rolling to the right. It was a spiral divergent type.