2. Hold q = 32° until shutdown at 77 sec, then pushover to zero "g."

3. Perform R and L 30° rolls during climb.

4. At max. altitude increase a to 20° in 5° steps.

5. Enter at a = 20°.

6. Perform adaptive pulses when level.

7. Perform fixed gain pulses.

8. Check hold modes.

9. Use CSS during turn to high key.

10. Land with adaptive dampers.
 
 

P.C.: I would say generally yes, except for the modification on pushing over, and that was because of a pilot problem with orientation.

2. Were there any FCS malfunctions?

P.C.: None that I could detect.

3. Compare flight with simulator for FCS operation.

P.C.: Flight was superior to the simulator, particularly in the use of the control stick. In the simulator you are very definitely impressed with the delay in trimming action after you deflect the control and the time delay in trimming out the force, and in the simulator. In the simulator this resulted in over control in a number of places, particularly at low q at high angle of attack. When you'd try to make adjustments you'd find yourself over controlling a bit. This was not apparent at all in flight.

Question: Where do these differences exist?

P.C.: I think its probably hardware. I had been given the indication that the airplane would be better because of this problem on the simulator. In addition, another problem that was unique with the simulator, I think, was the damping, the directional damping as we got to low q. Of course that wasn't apparent in the airplane, it was excellent.

4. Give overall view and impressions of FCS.

P.C.: My impressions were marvelous.

5. Were there any switching transients?

P.C.: None that I was able to detect. None at all and that's going from adaptive dampers to fixed gain and back to adaptive and then back and forth to the 3 hold modes. I didn't use CSS, that's one thing that I should have.

P.C.: There were no deviations from the pre-launch check list.

2. Was analyzer operation distracting?

P.C.: Not at all. It calls for the analyzer check to start at 10 minutes and before we got the 10 minute call it looked like we were ready to go so I asked Butch, if we're ready to go, lets do it. I'm always anxious to stay ahead of the check list if I can. It's more practical. I got the data on and we went ahead and did the analyzer check and it's not the least bit distracting. I watched it and as a matter of fact was not as impressed with the transients in the airplane as some of the switching operation went on during the analyzer check or did I see the magnitude of trim change occur in the airplane as I did when I watched it on the ground during the mating check. If you weren't sitting there particularly with hands and feet off the controls watching for control action and changes in the trim settings and settings on your trim indicator on the right side you wouldn't notice that anything was going on. It just about amounts to that.

3. Did you observe the horizontal surface indicators during analyzer operation?

P.C.: Yes I watched them.

4. What was surface positions at end of test? Did you retrim? What setting?

P.C.: The surface positions at the end of test were pretty close to zero with the leading edge of the left stabilizer slightly more leading edge down than the right stabilizer which would give me a left roll. I had a little deflection on the leading edge stabilizer. Then as I got toward the launch point they seemed to even up of their own accord. I had -1/2° for the null position during the analyzer check and after the analyzer check was complete I recentered the trim knob to zero.

5. Did surfaces drift after FCS engagement?

P.C.: No, not that I was aware of. If there was anything it was so small as to not have any significance to me at all, as far as worrying about the launch trim setting.

P.C.: No, none at all. Comparing roll off with the others, the launch seemed quite normal. The launch last week in the #2 airplane, you remember the comment in the debriefing someone asked me if the launch seemed particularly hard and it did. This seemed more normal as I recall my previous launches.

2. Did FCS remain engaged through launch and engine light off?

P.C.: Yes it did.

3. What was the procedure used for rotation?

P.C.: I merely deflected the control to obtain 7° angle of attack. My initial deflection and rotation got the angle of attack up to 10° and I backed right off to try and hold it around 7°. It was 8, then it dropped to 6 and then I got it back up to 7°.

4. Rate the piloting task for drop and rotation.

P.C.: q 2 , f 1 , y 1 .

5.` How close did you hold a = 7° (8.5°) during rotation?

P.C.: I deflected to get up to the angle of attack and I suppose if I had left the stick alone it would have stayed there but I continually played with the stick and it jogged about 7°. It impressed me not much differently, right there, than it does in other airplanes. In other words, my task, control task of trying to peg it on 7° was about the same as it would be in any of the other airplanes, adaptive control system notwithstanding. It didn't seem to make any difference right there. Except of course, here I didn't have to use any trim.

6. Did you zero the trim wheel after q was established?

P.C.: I never used the trim wheel, not once during the entire flight. I had planned on it, myself, in the later part of the flight to develop a trim rate using the wheel, knock it off both ways, but because I had so much energy and then starting to move the airplane around to get it in, I didn't do it.

7. How close did you hold q?

P.C.: I held it, I thought I was holding it right on and the task seemed reasonably easy to do. I felt that my limits would have been within +1/2° or -1/2° on that.

8. Did you trim roll? How much? Which way?

P.C.: I never did touch the trim roll at all. It was about zero at launch.

9. Did you notice auto trim operation?

P.C.: Yes, I did. I noticed it more in the later part of the flight. I didn't particularly notice it during the launch and initial rotation.

10. Could you detect gain cycling? Limit cycling?

P.C.: The only cycling I noticed was this roll cycling, low amplitude and this didn't particularly bother me. I noted it and it registered but as I say by the time I got to about the 20° q angle it subsided.

P.C.: Again, this was -- Rushworth seemed to be a couple of seconds behind me on the count from the ground. I came up to 77 seconds about a second and a half ahead of their counting. Then being low on the profile anyway, I just used the slow retard on the throttle and then shut it off. For the pushover I just eased off the pitch angle and cross checked right over to the angle of attack and it was sitting on about 11°. The airplane was sitting there real solid. Again, I was low on the profile so I thought, well, I'll just let it sit right here. I let the airplane rotate through the pushover at that angle of attack.

2. Rate piloting task for pushover.

P.C.: There wasn't any task involved so I'd say q 1 , f 1 , y 1 . Really it was that easy. It took a lot of the effort away.

3. How close was zero g held? What was a?

P.C.: I didn't hold zero g. a was about 11° angle of attack and it held it very closely.

4. When were reaction controls turned on? Did you notice any reaction controls operation?

P.C. : I turned on the reaction controls to auto right after burnout and then as we progressed over the top I did notice reaction control operation. I was able to see exhaust on at least 3 different occasions. Just catching wisps of this. There wasn't anything else flying by, I'm sure that it was the exhaust that I caught. It was surprising to see this and it was very brief, of course. Then I could hear the reaction control operating and, as best as I can report it to you, the sense was that it was the bottom rocket firing to keep the nose up because this occurred after I rotated to the 20° angle of attack and I could hear this thing blasting away.

5. Give ratings for roll step inputs. Rate pilot task to recover from pulses.

P.C.: y 3 , f 2 . In yaw I'll say 1 because I didn't have to do anything except stop the rolling and it came right back in a dead beat damp by itself. There was no action in pitch so it's l and roll is 1.

6. What were max. altitude and velocity?

P.C.: I think they called it 180,000 feet and 5100 or something ft/sec. When I got that call from the ground I was quite surprised to hear it because I'm seeing myself going through 180,000 about the time he called it.

7. Was the a increase oscillatory?

P.C.: No, I started up, if I had been at zero the plan called for increasing in 5° increments and I was starting out at about 11° so I just eased it right on up to 20°. It just moved up real smoothly, followed my command almost exactly the way I would like to see it happen.

8. What was maximum a?

P.C.: I'll say the maximum a was 20°.

9. Did a droop during entry? How much?

P.C.: It did droop during reentry to 17°. I guess I got lazy or I could have pulled it back up there.

10. Give pilot ratings for task during entry.

P.C.: q 3 , f 1 , y 2 .

Question: Did you feel a change in the longitudinal g?

P.C.: No, well of course again, we were lower than we had anticipated getting to. The longitudinal g didn't impress me on this flight. On the 217,000 foot flight I remember that very distinctly as having a definite impression on the longitudinal g.

Question: How would MH compare with SAS at 8-6-8?

P.C.: Well, it would be at least 1 higher with the SAS power, without trimming and not using reaction control.

Statement: I was surprised that you rated a 1, 1, 1. It doesn't leave you far to go.

P.C.: Well, lets call it a 2, 1, 2.

Statement: Don't let me change it.

P.C.: No, I should. I guess I'm trying to be more severe to satisfy you guys, you seemed unhappy the last time.

Statement: No, evidently you're happier with this system than with SAS and this is good.

P.C.: Well, I'll tell you, there's no comparing it. After all, all my experience was flying the other system. Let's look at it this way, if I were on a flight with the other system and I'm using reaction control, going over the top and getting ready for the entry, my feeling is that my attention is devoted primarily to just flying the airplane and trying to achieve the results I'm looking for. Here I had the impression that I could get these things, get them rather easily, it would hold so well that if people starting firing questions from the ground, hey what's this read or what's that read, I would take the time and divert attention and look at this thing, let it register and answer. On the other flights you feel like don't bother me pal I'm busy.

11. Were there any limit cycles?

P.C.: No, none that I could detect.

12. What was the max. g, a and stabilizer?

P.C.: The max. g was just a little over 3. The angle of attack, primarily around 17° on the entry. The stabilizer, I didn't read it off but I think you indicated that I got to 25° on the stabilizer.

13. Did you detect gain cycling, auto trim operation or any switching transients during entry?

P.C.: No. Auto trim operation -- I could feel this. No switching transients.

14. Did you get a H202 low light? Where?

P.C.: I never got a peroxide low light.

15. Rate damping on adaptive dampers for pulses.

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

16. At what conditions did you go on fixed gain dampers?

P.C.: That should have been just a little below 4000 ft/sec when I switched over to fixed gain.

17. Rate damping on fixed gains for pulses.

P.C.: The damping wasn't bad under those conditions. I had good q and so forth so the damping was pretty good. I would say it would be something like q 3 , f 3 , y 4.5 . b went out fast, I don't know, about 4° and swung back and forth and probably would take 4 cycles to damp to 1/2.

18. Rate pilot task to recover from pulses on fixed gain.

P.C.: No problem in pitch and roll so I'd say 2 there. In yaw when they started going I did make some small motion on the control which indicates that it took me to task much unlike the rest of the flight had been so I'd call that a 4. If I had left it alone it definitely would have damped out. It was convergent.

19. When did you turn FCS reaction control off?

P.C.: I turned it off on the entry while g was still on the airplane.

20. Were there any transients resulting from engaging fixed gain damper or re-engaging adaptive dampers?

P.C.: None that I could detect.

21. Describe the FCS and airplane behavior during the hold mode checks.

P.C.: It was good. There were no transients in switching back and forth the various hold modes. I went on angle of attack and it seemed to hold. As quickly as I did it, I was on it a very short time, it looked like it wasn't going to vary more than 1/2 either way. I quickly switched on to pitch hold, opened up the speed brakes and the pitch angle held nicely. I threw it into a 20° right roll, 20° bank angle to the right engaged roll hold, displaced it away from it then returned and held it right on the money. Then I came off the hold modes and maneuvered around then in a left-hand turn to get back over to the downwind leg. I went to about 40° bank angle to the left, engaged roll hold and it seemed to hold that very well too. The airplane behavior was excellent.

P.C.: I didn't use the CSS during turn to high key.

2. Did you detect auto trim operation during approach and landing?

P.C.: Yes, I did detect that the thing was moving but not objectionably. I thought this might possibly be objectionable but it seemed to follow fast enough to satisfy me.

3. Was gain cycling detected?

P.C.: No, I couldn't tell anything.

4. Did operation of flaps, gear or ventral jettison produce any reaction in the FCS?

P.C.: No, there was no reaction from these things.

5. Give pilot rating for task during approach and landing.

P.C.: How do I usually rate these things, 1, 1, 1? Well, I can't say that this is any worse.

On the landing, the last part of it, I was quite a bit higher as I went through my configuration changes than I think I normally am. I think I normally come down a little bit lower. I recognized this but I cross checked the speed. I had plenty of speed so I didn't have to worry about it while I came on down slowly. I think I was anticipating the airplane getting sloppier than I'm used to the airplanes being here so I was not driving it to positions that I might normally have, particularly in trying to put it down in one spot, although I was still aiming for it.