2. Engage f and q Hold during climbout.

3. Reaction controls on auto at 100,000 feet.

4. Shutdown at 80 sec and engage a Hold.

5. Disengage Hold modes and fly manually to the peak.

6. At peak maintain q = 0° until a = 20. Hold a = 20 for entry using a Hold until 5.5g max.

7. When level check heading hold.

8. Use CSS during turn to high key.

9. Landing with adaptive dampers.

P.C.: I would say yes, I was able to follow it, just about in all respects.

2. Were there any FCS malfunctions?

P.C.: There were no flight control system malfunctions.

3. Compare flight with simulator for FCS operation.

P.C.: In comparing the flight with the simulator for FCS operation, it compares favorably except for a few places that I can comment on again. First of all, in engaging the hold modes, I think was the biggest difference. No transients, but I expected it to be a little bit tighter than it turned out to be. I think another factor was time. I think my delay in getting to the hold modes, and getting trimmed, trying to trim it up very neatly on whatever particular condition I was trying to maintain. I was aware that the thing had to be working, but again the impression was not quite as tight in the hold modes as I thought it would be; still good, however.

Another big difference was on the g limiting, as indicated, I got g limiting during the flight. It was quite a bit unlike the simulator. The simulator bobbles around about 3/4 of a g, but in the airplane it came right up to 5 and held it without any excursion that I could detect and report on. It just came up to 5 and stayed right on 5g just perfect.

4. Give an overall view and impression of FCS.

P.C.: My overall view and impressions of FCS. They are really no different than they were the last time, which was very good.

5. Were there any switching transients?

P.C.: No switching transients at all.

6. Could you see Hold mode status lights?

P.C.: Could I see the hold mode status light? No, I didn't look for them. Like I did in the simulator, I kept my hand down on the panel so that I could feel the switch positions. I didn't hold the switches in place or try to restrict them from popping out if that was going to happen. I just held my hands down there; with only three switches. I know where they are and what I have.

P.C.: No, I didn't.

2. Was analyzer operation different from the previous flight operation?

P.C.: The analyzer operation impressed me as being exactly the same as it was on the previous flight operation.

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

P.C.: I did observe horizontal surface indicators moving around during the analyzer operation.

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

P.C.: Trim positions at the end of the test were essentially zero. I returned the trim wheel to zero setting, but this didn't result in any retrimming that I was able to detect.

5. Did surfaces drift after FCS engagement?

P.C.: There was just a little bit, but nothing that I was inclined to make any correction for.
 
 

P.C.: I didn't hold any control in for launch. I merely threw the switch and let it come out as it bled. Rolloff was nothing unusual. I compare it as being the normal type thing, perhaps even a little bit less.

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

P.C.: The FCS remained engaged through the launch and the engine light-off.

3. What trim setting was used for rotation?

P.C.: After light-off, I rotated the trim to a -5 setting.

4. What a and g did this yield?

P.C.: I got a trim rate in a rotation that gave me about 10° a and no more than 2g, and this was a little bit less than I expected. Simulation exercise gave us about 13° a and 2-1/2g, so I thought I was rotating at a slower rate than what I did in the simulator.

5. Did you change this trim setting? Was the pitch rate onset satisfactory?

P.C.: I didn't really change the trim setting. I may have beeped in just a little bit more without any apparent change. The pitch rate onset was satisfactory. There was no problem there. It was coming up very nice and smooth and at a rate that I wouldn't consider excessive. I think that would have been the thing you might have objected to. But it certainly wasn't excessive.

6. Rate piloting task for drop and rotation.

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

7. Was f » O and heading 205° for f Hold engagement?

P.C.: Bank angle was zero and heading was 205° when I engaged roll hold. Roll oscillation did occur as I was rotating and increasing velocity.

8. Was there any roll oscillation?

P.C.: The roll oscillation was just as I described, and it went away just as I called it out and reported it.

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

P.C.: I zeroed the trim wheel just as the pitch angle was being established at 37°.

10. What was the q for q Hold engagement?

P.C.: I reached over and engaged q Hold and I would say I was 1° shy, about 36° q, when I flipped it on. I should have been at 37°. I backed off to zero. Zero to trim rate is about 36° when you engage the q Hold at 37°. It was a very low magnitude. It was such a low magnitude that I just left it alone and then it went away.

11. Within what tolerances was q held? Did you trim q?

P.C.: Okay, when we got pitch hold engaged, the tolerances there were about ±2°. It decreased a couple of degrees and I reached over and cranked in some trim. I did trim q so as we came off the pitch angle and then back up on it to 37°, so we probably averaged pretty close to holding that pitch angle all the way up. Minus or plus 2°, it shouldn't be beyond that.

12. At what altitude were auto reaction controls engaged?

P.C.: I engaged them at just short of 100,000 feet.

13. Did you note any reaction control operation?

P.C.: Yes, but only up on top. This is after engine shutdown.

14. Did you note auto trim operation?

P.C.: Yes, I did, particularly since I was going back and forth in the various hold modes, particularly after I engaged pitch hold on top and the stabilizer kept trimming to maintain the near zero pitch angle that I selected.

15. Could you detect gain cycling?

P.C.: I couldn't detect any gain cycling except in the early part of the flight as I pointed out.

P.C.: Angle of attack about 10° a, the altitude, I didn't look at the altitude specifically at shutdown. The velocity was in the order of 5,300 ft/sec, as much as I can recall. The first time I looked at altitude after shutdown I was passing through 150,000 feet, but this was well after shutdown.

2. Was a Hold engaged immediately?

P.C.: Yes, it was. The a held about 8°.

3. What a did the FCS hold?

P.C.: It certainly was within ±2°.

4. Did a/b become unreliable? At what conditions? Describe the behavior.

P.C.: You know, I really didn't think they became as unreliable as I thought they would. However, I did start ignoring the indications. I didn't pay much attention to them. I didn't have to worry about it at angle of attack over the top, so I didn't pay any attention to it. The b wandered around a little bit, but not very much. I went over to paying attention to direction. The real unreliability came near the top when I called them out when you can start seeing the needle go through their oscillations when the reaction controls fire. This is, perhaps, the best indication that the pilot will have every time that these things become unreliable. Instead of seeing the needles wandering off and wondering at what point he decides that this is a sideslip in a certain magnitude or shall I say that now the thing is becoming unreliable it seems to me that when this jumping starts occurring that this is a good point. A very good point, it is a real signal to the pilot. They do a little dance and this is a real good indication.

5. What were the limits to the excursions in q and f and heading during the manual controlled flight?

P.C.: I was using the horizon. That is considered a cross-check simply because it's there, but essentially I was watching the attitude indication. Of course, there are no excursions in roll. I think it could be detected, unless the pilot was glued to flying the instrument presentation, I would detect roll by the change in what I see in the horizon I think faster than I do on the attitude indicator and by noting the pitch I get a real good indication from the attitude indicator as well as the horizon, but on direction I definitely have to go to the indicator. I may detect movement, but I don't pick out some point on the horizon, at least I don't feel that I can and try to hold it on some point. I'd rather do it on direction and this seemed easy enough to do with a few small inputs. Well, in roll I'd say there were essentially none. In pitch, the only excursions here would occur after you engage the pitch hold because actually I was never in manual flight where I was holding at one particular pitch angle. I was transitioning in pitch going over the top, and when I got to zero pitch angle, I threw on pitch hold. That occurred at about 2° below the horizon. Then it came down a few more degrees, and I think that may be where you got the input from me on this stick and then again I found the trim wheel not seeming to hold it within ± maybe 3°. As I came in on the reentry, it definitely was holding it as the angle of attack very nicely started increasing. The heading, I don't think I made any changes except in heading, no more than 2°, which was quite a bit better than we had to do on the simulation. On the simulation, we'd fail a and b indications at 200,000 feet over the top and from there on we would have quite a few inputs in directional control to maintain a heading so that we would come out with a small sideslip. There were very definitely fewer inputs.

6. Give ratings for piloting task for manual control. q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

As a matter of fact, with the delay in setting up hold modes, and then trying to trim to maintain a particular condition once you have established a hold mode, I felt that with no more effort then I was applying after engaging the hold mode and trying to retrim and see whether or not I was synchronizing myself with what this thing should be, that if I were flying it manually the task would have been no greater.

7. What were the indicated peak altitude and velocity? H202 source pressure?

P.C.: The indication at peak altitude it looked like 249,000 feet. I didn't make any notice of velocity at peak. The peroxide source pressure, I called it out as best I can recall. It was 2,500 psi for No. 1 system on top.

8. At what conditions did you engage q Hold? Within what limits did it hold?

P.C.: It was just after coming level it looked like it was just 2° below the horizon. Within what limits, I would define that I would say within ±3° or probably a little less than that probably ±2°.

9. At what conditions did you feel a/b were again reliable?

P.C.: About 220,000 feet.

10. What was a for a Hold engagement? How well did it hold?

P.C.: The a for a Hold engagement was 21°. How well did it hold, well initially, right after engaging it, it came right back down I guess to about 16° or 17° and then I reached over again and spun it on up to get the angle of attack, and from that point on it seemed to hold pretty well.

11. When was FCS reaction controls turned off? What was source pressure?

P.C.: When I got to 1g I reached down and turned them off. I was at an indicated 132,000 feet. The source pressure, I didn't look at the source pressure at that time.

12. What was maximum entry a? and g? Did g limiting occur?

P.C.: The maximum entry a = 20°. The g was 5. I wasn't aware that a g-limiting had occurred. I thought perhaps we were shy of it because I had the angle-of-attack hold on and let the g come on and build up and didn't make any inputs on the control stick. It came up to 5g and just stopped there and held 5g beautifully, and I suppose from simulator work, g limiting would have shown some bouncing back off the g if it reached that point, but it wasn't, it came slowly up to 5g and then just stuck right there.

13. Give ratings for entry. q 1 , f 1 , y 2 .

P.C.: I didn't mention this, but during the entry I started to get a little bit of yaw oscillation. It came on, it was low magnitude, and then it became deadbeat.

14. Were there any limit cycles?

P.C.: If there were any I wasn't impressed by it.

15. Did you detect auto-trim operation?

P.C.: Trim operation again, yes, as the angle of attack was coming up I detected auto-trim operation.

16. Did you get a H202 low light?

P.C.: I didn't get a peroxide low light.

17. Was heading hold operation satisfactory?

P.C.: Heading hold operation satisfactory, again only to the extent that I can say down in the pattern phase I engaged heading hold with the bank angle zero. I didn't even take note of the heading. It had to be that fast, so I got over to zero bank angle, engaged roll hold, flew in a 30° bank, got over a little bit and let it go, it rolled back out and when it indicated a turn in the opposite direction, I disengaged and had a quick turn with it downwind. So, only from that standpoint it seemed to be making the motions the way I would expect it to, but it did roll past zero. So, beyond that I didn't actually get a good measure on the thing.

P.C.: No, I didn't. Again, I didn't use that bloody thing. I suppose I should.

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

P.C.: Maybe it was unfair for me to say yes. I get used to the thing and I just deflect and I really don't notice it trimming it out, but it was occurring. I was aware that this decreases my deflective control.

3. Was gain cycling detected?

P.C.: I couldn't detect any gain cycling anywhere. I was rocking the airplane back and forth on the downward leg.

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

P.C.: Operation of the flaps, gear and ventral jettison. I threw off the ventral quite normal, and started my rotation and threw the flaps down, didn't cause me any problem at all. Threw the gear out. That didn't cause me any problem at all. I landed the airplane, and that didn't cause any problem at all. I had the impression that the airplane is just as well damped in all axes as it's been in any previous experiences. It has been quite a surprise, you know, expecting perhaps that, of course, I haven't felt that I have been buffeted around by any rough air.

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

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: Look up for whatever I said for the last time and it will be the same thing.

General Comments

Question: You said something about changing direction, was this on the horizon or on the ball.

White: No, this was looking outside the airplane as well as up on the indicator, it looked like 207° where I decided this was going to be my zero point, and I am going to fly there. If I start having excursions I want to zero it to 207°, and when I come back in on the sideslip indications I should have a small sideslip angle.