2. 2g - Maintain 2g until q = 33°.

3. q = 33° - Maintain q = 33°.

4. Extend speed brakes.

5. Shutdown. (Shutdown will be accomplished at 78 sec - or 5000 ft/sec. whichever occurs first). Maintain » 6° a. ^·y switch to ^·y.

6. Peak altitude. Roll in 30° left bank and release (Do not use CSS). Maintain q = 0° until a = 20°. Maintain a = 20° (Do not exceed 25° dH).

7. Disengage f Hold, ^·y switch to "STANDBY".

8. 4g - Maintain 4g until H-dot » -500 ft/sec. (Max reentry q » 550).

9. H-dot = -500 ft/sec, pushover to a » 2°, extend speed brakes to 35°. Vector to high key.

P.C.: Yes, I guess you could say the prelaunch check off was accomplished without incident. We got the checkout all right, even though the radio seemed to pull a blank.

B. Was the launch accomplished without incident?

P.C.: The launch was accomplished without incident except for the fact that due to having roll hold engaged, it appeared there was more lateral oscillation upon correcting for the roll off tendency.

C. Did "f Hold" remain engaged through launch?

P.C.: Roll Hold did remain engaged through the launch and until I turned it off, coming back down from altitude.

q 1.5 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: There wasn't anything different in the task of acquiring and holding climb attitude. I didn't do as well holding q mainly because of other distractions such as the sun in my eyes and scanning other gages. Except for that, I got maybe ±3°q error after getting up there. I got up to 33°q and it drooped a little bit, but I finally, by a combination of signals, decided that we were doing well on the climbout and that an effective 32°q was going to be all right.

Actually, the ratings shown will be what the pilot did rather than what you could do with it. With this bank angle hold on there, there wasn't any problem. I think I made a 2° heading correction, at least I was requested and attempted to do so. The hold function holds the heading and the roll attitude nicely. I don't think I used the CSS button. I didn't even roll it. To correct the heading, I shoved the rudder in and pulled it over. I stayed on 175°. Maybe we were off to the left at launch, and that 175° needed correcting back or maybe this track just drifted around. I maintained 175 heading throughout the flight except for small errors over the top.

B. Describe airplane controllability using "f Hold" control function considering:

(1) FCS dominance over lateral attitude

(2) FCS dominance over heading

P.C.: I have the impression that I didn't have any trouble any time I wanted to use my control handle to change roll attitude through small angles. Finally, about the time you got to 15° bank angle or so, you could notice it was trying to beat you back.

Over heading, I wasn't attempting to change anything except as indicated after launch, and I appeared to have been able to do that.

C. To within what tolerances did FCS hold:

(1) lateral attitude

(2) heading

P.C.: Lateral attitude change during the climb was slow enough that I didn't have any problems. I didn't even attempt to correct the error. It must have been a degree or so maximum.

Heading stayed right in there.

D. Did limit cycle characteristics change due to "f Hold" engagement?

P.C.: You could still feel the limit cycle but it wasn't near as bothersome. In fact, I noticed it more after I disengaged "ROLL HOLD" coming home, than I did on the climbout. It improved the control situation.

E. Describe briefly the shutdown sequence.

P.C.: Shutdown was 2° low on pitch attitude. During the climb, velocity was coming along indicating I would hit 5,000 ft/sec by the time the clock got to 78 seconds. So, I just decided to watch the velocity and I chopped the throttle on 5,000 ft/sec, and it was right at the ground callout of 78 seconds. The engine clock kept on running, so I had no way of knowing what my time had really been at the instant I chopped it.

I proceeded onward. I hadn't had any trouble in getting those speed brakes out. I started right on 2,000 ft/sec, which was 2 seconds ahead of the ground callout for 30 seconds. I believe the ground callout was about a second behind my clock. I'd have 31 seconds when he had 30 or something on that order.

There were no asymmetric thrust indications whatsoever, shutdown was very smooth. However, I could have jiggled the control with the change in longitudinal acceleration. I then changed to 20° speed brakes and sailed on up.

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: The rating for the overall control task during ballistic flight is as shown.

B. During ballistic flight, to within what tolerances did FCS hold:

(1) lateral attitude

(2) heading

P.C.: I would say this control system held lateral attitude to such a degree that I couldn't detect any error.

In heading, the maximum error was 2°. This was triggered mainly by my putting in the requested 30° bank angle, then releasing the stick and observing the operation which brought the airplane back to level attitude in about 1-1/2 cycles.

The 2° error that got in there during the bank recovery stayed for a number of seconds and then finally decided to work its way back to zero. It stayed easily within a degree, each side, until I cut it off.

C. Describe airplane controllability and rate pilot task to perform ballistic 30° bank maneuver.

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

P.C.: Ratings for controllability and pilot task would be as shown.

D. Comment on FCS control function during 30° bank maneuver.

P.C.: It did not hold steady on the heading and did yaw back and forth during the operation. It wasn't well coordinated. However, as I have said already, it's my very strong impression that it was working better this time than it did on flight 3-14-24.

E. Describe airplane motion transients (amplitude and frequency) following stick release from 30° banked attitude.

P.C.: The airplane stopped right on the bank angle that you want it to stop on and didn't overshoot. You have to realize it's a real battle bucking the system, putting it over there with that roll hold engaged, so it wasn't a problem of overshooting, it was a problem getting there.

F. Describe primary control technique during initial portion of the reentry (transition from ballistic to aero control).

P.C.: The primary control technique during the initial portion of the reentry was to roll in some pitch rate command, which I had to fish around on, both because the airplane differed slightly from the simulation routine and because I wasn't just sure whether ±1° null offset the whole scale the same way. So, I actually got up past a rate command of 2 once but it was too much. I think I settled down around 1-1/2 which was a reasonable number, and I then used the control handle as a vernier on angle of attack around 20°. I also disengaged roll hold and had to make a small amount of lateral correction to keep it level. I did a couple of little directional inputs to steady the sideslip and that's all.

G. Describe primary control technique during terminal portion of the reentry.

P.C.: In the entry it was mainly a pitch job to hold the angle of attack up without getting too much stabilizer. Stabilizer was going to -33° and stopped for a minute, and was the highest it ever got. That's when I allowed the angle of attack to go down a little lower for a while. Then I let angle of attack stay down at 18°. I was only briefly at 20 during the pullout. I could tell by feel I was going to bottom the stabilizer if I tried to get on up to 4g normal acceleration.

At any rate, now that I was up to 3.9g which was close enough, and due to the fact that we were high on energy, I had my mind made up I wasn't going to flatten out as far anyhow.

H. Rate the piloting task during:

Initial portion of the reentry q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

Terminal portion of the reentry q 1.5 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C.: There wasn't any problem anywhere except the terminal portion of the reentry. Maintaining angle of attack required considerable attention, but the initial portion was a reasonable job. It was just a case of translating the nose angle to get angle of attack. I'll rate the piloting task as shown.

I. Comment on the effectiveness of turn maneuver vs. speed brake deployment for energy management following the reentry maneuver.

P.C.: I feel it was the most effective thing to do. Of course, I used the speed brakes too. It does help you out, both in knocking off energy, and giving you a chance to get in a better position for the landing pattern.

J. Rate the pilot control task for I above,

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

K. Was the approach from high key and landing accomplished without incident?

P.C.: Yes, approach from high key and landing was accomplished without incident in spite of all of this miscellaneous emergency pressurization bit, I kept getting gladder and gladder that I had decided to start early setting up for the landing, because I found myself out there at 15,000 feet and all I could see out the window was north Muroc.

P. C.: The only general comment would be concerning the extra effort I felt I had to make in order to assure myself of positive action at the time of the engine shutdown.

B. Compare flight profile with simulator performance.

P. C.: The flight profile from all I can tell, is on an equal basis with the simulator performance. We got some wrong indications of being low on energy and high on the profile, but the cockpit indications went along with it, and we came out according to plan.

C. Compare airplane controllability with simulator.

P. C.: The controllability as far as the control system goes is equal or better than the simulator . I think maybe you get a little adverse impression sometimes from motions of the 3 axis ball indicator. I didn't get near as much sideslip when I went into that turn as we got on the simulation. So I think probably the indication we were getting dampers off on the simulator are way pessimistic right now.