Launch: Smith Ranch on magnetic heading 170°, MH-96 Adaptive Roll hold "ON", R. C. "AUTO", BCS "ON", heading vernier to "^·y", ventral off.

Launch Point coordinates: 39° 30'N, 117° 10'W

1. Launch, light engine, increase to 100% T. Rotate to 2g.

2. 2g - Maintain 2g until q = 48°.

3. q = 48° - Maintain q = 48°.

4. Burnout. Shutdown at a predicted altitude of 360,000 ft. if burnout has not occurred and velocity is greater than 5200 fps.

5. Heading vernier to "STANDBY", check b = O, then return to "^·y."

6. Pushover to q = 0°. Roll to 45° bank angle, maintain 45° to peak altitude.

7. Peak altitude. Roll wings level. Extend speed brakes to 20°. Maintain q = -20° until approximately 220,000 ft., then establish a = 26° for reentry.

8. Roll hold "OFF", heading vernier to "STANDBY".

9. 5.2g - maintain 5.2g. Retract speed brakes when H-dot » -500 fps. (Max reentry q » 1200 psf).

10. H-dot » +300 fps (q » 18°) pushover to » 3°a. Max H-dot » 600 fps. Vector to High Key. Reaction control "OFF". Engine Master "OFF".

11. China Lake. Speed brakes as required.

12. High Key -

P.C.: I followed the flight plan as I had practiced it on the simulator.

2. Did you rely on ground callouts at all to accomplish your profile?

P.C.: I did not rely on ground callouts except to tell whether or not my altimeter was reading correctly.

3. Was the prelaunch checkoff accomplished without incident?

P.C.: Prelaunch checkoff was accomplished without incident.

4. What were the results of the prelaunch heading checks?

P.C.: The heading checked when we got down around the 170° point before launch. The worst I was ever off at any time was a couple of degrees.

P C. The launch was accomplished without incident.

2. Was the engine light accomplished without incident?

P.C. The engine light was accomplished without incident.

3. Was trim used for rotation? (a) What was indicated normal acceleration for rotation?

P.C. Trim was not used for rotation except for trim follow-up Indicated normal acceleration for rotation was 2 g's.

4. Compare rotation with simulator.

P.C. Unless the accelerometer was haybagged the rotation was slow from the time we hit 2 g's, on up. I went by 30 seconds and I hadn't even got the vernier off the peg. In fact by the ball, it had in excess of 10°, yet to go.

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

(a) Rate comparable task for the simulator:

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

P.C. There wasn't any trouble to acquire 48° q, except just getting there. Control in pitch was no strain except the job of pulling the nose up, roll was doing fine and I had no trouble with heading. I had adjusted the rudder pedal position to compensate for the length of my right leg, over the left one. I thought that one up myself.

(a) Comparable task for the simulator was just about the same once we got rid of the drift in the simulator.

2. What were tolerances in heading during boost? Sideslip?

P.C. Tolerances in heading during boost were ± 1°. I'll be darned if I know about sideslip, seeing as how I was flying heading.

3. Describe your primary instrument references during climbout, and how they were used.

P.C. The instrument references were attitude, g-meter, thence theta, thence altitude, velocity, and predicted altitude. All this time of course attitude indications in pitch, roll, and heading were primary.

I found the first check point at 70,000 ft. inertial altitude, was showing 135,000 ft. on the predictor vs. our forecast 100,000 ft. Right away my busy little old computer got to putting together that information plus how long it took me to get up on the indicated theta - says ah ha something isn't right here. So I dipped the nose, and then decided that a 4° decrease in theta was just slightly way too much so I eased back up some.

By now we were approaching 150,000 ft. on the predictor. I looked back at my actual inertial altitude and I hadn't got to 90,000 ft. - I think we just got by 90,000 ft. when the predictor went by 170,000 ft. but it should have been 100,000 ft. actual altitude vs. 170,000 ft. predicted.

I took this as verification of earlier suspicions and continued to make a theta correction toward getting the actual altitude vs. the corresponding predictor altitude back together, and then when it looked like things were jiving pretty good, got back on the 48° q. When we went by 150,000 ft. inertial altitude, we were doing fine because I think it was showing 300,000 ft. on the predictor. I felt this was right where we wanted to be and continued that way on up to shut down.

I was watching the inertial altitude in order to chip the engine manually if we got to 176,000 ft. before the predictor reached its shut down point but the predictor wrapped up exactly as we've watched on our simulations, and kept an increasing rate of altitude increase, and the engine shut down on me just as the needle hit 362,000 ft.

I didn't notice the exact velocity at the shut down point, but I thought the actual altitude was 170,000 ft.

4. Describe and rate the pilot control task during climbout.

q > 250 psf q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

q < 250 psf q 2 , f 1 , y 1 .

(a) Rate comparable task for the simulator.

(Same pilot ratings)

P.C. Well, pilot control task during climbout stays pretty good in roll and heading. The pitch deteriorates as the dynamic pressure goes down, so that what's easy to hold within a half a degree, gradually gets difficult to hold even within a degree, towards shut down.

The same thing in the simulator.

5. Within what tolerances were q = 48° held?

P.C. It took some doing but I got her up to 48° q, and sat for awhile until all these little items of interest relative to the altitude predictor started clashing with each other.

I undershot, to about 15° theta below indicated by the ball, but I came back up right away. I decided that was way too much.

6. Review the engine shutdown sequence. (Give shut down conditions).

P.C. The engine shut itself down.

7. Were shutdown transients noticed?

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

8. Was the apogee prediction useful and/or important in giving you a shutdown cue?

P.C. See comments in III-3.

P.C. I didn't do a beta check. However, when I went back to beta on the downhill side I hardly had any beta. Maybe a maximum of a couple of degrees.

2. Discuss and rate the fixed attitude control task.

Using Roll Hold only q 1 , f 4 , y 1 .

Using Manual Control q 1 , f 1 , y 1 .

(a) Rate comparable task for the simulator.

q 1.5 , f 1.5 , y 2 .

Explain differences.

P.C. It wasn't very difficult at all. I had a much more difficult task just trying to straighten her out. The bank error kept coming on. Pitch and yaw seemed to be doing fine coasting to apogee, and over the top because I cranked in some negative pitch rates and the nose gradually worked its way down toward zero theta. And, when I put it to zero it stayed there. During this time the heading hold was locked in there so I couldn't figure out anything else that would hold it in, if it wasn't working right. But, it wanted to roll to the right.

We either had a stuck open rocket or a slightly leaking rocket, but in excess of what you'd get with full control to the left. (Note: The data indicates the #1 system left roll rocket peroxide line may have been frozen.) I tried moving the MH-96 selector switch to the manual and off positions with no change in the roll rate. I put it back to the automatic position and having decided that the roll axis wasn't any good anyhow, I figured I wasn't going to buck that if I used the manual handle. I went ahead and flew this way, not only leveled up several times, but I did the task to 45° left bank, using manual roll BCS input. I wasn't using any pitch control here. Up to this point the automatic function seemed to suffice.

During the bank task I had absolutely no trouble with pitch. It required only about 1/3 of my attention. Just enough to not the angle on the attitude indicator. For intentional maneuvering using the hybrid auto, manual system, the pilot ratings would be as shown. But on this flight the hold mode was something terrible in roll. I ought to call that thing 3 or 4, or any bad number which isn't catastrophic, if you want a rating for the roll hold mode situation coasting up toward apogee.

The bank task in flight was much easier than the comparable task on the simulator. Part of this was due to the fact I didn't have roll hold bucking me back toward neutral, but it also seemed better in pitch, and it held better in sideslip. It never deviated from heading more than maybe about a degree toward the right, indicating my nose had got me a degree left of track. I'd say the simulator was about 1 1/2 in pitch. It wasn't really good at all in heading. I think it was the simulator machinery, but that would be a 2 for psi and the roll. For a comparison you might say it was 1 1/2, with the proviso that we understand that we're making it harder by leaving the roll hold on.

3. Within what tolerances were q and f held during the attitude control task?

P.C. I didn't pay attention to how much tolerance I had on theta and phi during the attitude control task, but I obviously should have been within 2°.

4. Rate and discuss the q = -20°, f = 0° control task.

q 1.5 , f 1 , y 1.5 . Airplane

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 . Simulator

Why differences?

P.C. At this point, I was becoming more and more convinced that BCS off the MH-96 system was not doing what it should as I had to continue manual lateral control to keep wings level. After rolling in a great amount of pitch rate, as I was approaching 200,000 ft., my nose was going down and down to greater than -30° of theta, so I raised the nose using manual CBS in pitch. I didn't let it drift on down, it was doing this in spite of back stick and pitch rate command. The airplane bobbled a little and I damped that out and got my stabilizer straightened out. Heading was joggling some so I worked on that, and got that clamped down pretty good, but I wasn't having any particular trouble at this time laterally. The pilot ratings would have been about a 1 1/2, 1, 1 1/2 on the airplane, and this portion of the flight was almost a 1, 1, 1 on the simulator when it was working smoothly. I've already outlined the differences.

When I got down to where I had adequate q for aerodynamic control, the aerodynamic control came on much better than it does in the simulator. No ratting around when you make a control input, it responded nicely. So I changed to the sideslip presentation - I've already mentioned when I went from delta psi to sideslip I hardly shifted 2°, and was pretty quiet directionally, except for some directional joggles, which had apparently no lateral motion associated with them. This straightened out, the airplane oscillated in longitudinal acceleration about 3 times while I got the stick quieted down, and from there on it was a 1, 1, 1 aerodynamic pull out.

I'd rate pitch in the simulator lower like 1 1/2 I believe, because of the complications of the simulator machinery, but I guess it wouldn't be fair to reduce the rating in roll because of that sticky stabilizer thing. Generally, with the system running correctly it's not too bad.

5. Within what tolerances were q and f held?

P.C. (Note: The data show excursions to about -40° q and less than ±10° f).

6. Generally, discuss the technique used to perform the fixed attitude control task.

P.C. The technique I used to perform the fixed attitude bank task was hold the nose near zero theta and roll over to 45°. I didn't have to do anything directionally.

7. Do you feel that these tasks can be completed accurately with the information presently available to the pilot? If "no," what additional information do you require?

P.C. I feel that these tasks can be completed accurately with the information presently available to the pilot, subject to the accuracy of the information which is presented.

8. Within what tolerances was heading held?

P.C. Maximum heading error that I ever observed was 2°. Generally it was less than 1°, for any stated interval. A couple of times when we wobbled back and forth, we were greater than that, but it was an oscillation.

q 1.5 , f 1 , y 1.5 . Airplane

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 . Simulator

Why differences?

P.C. See comments in IV-4.

2. Discuss and rate the reentry control task.

q 1 , f 1 , y 1 . Airplane

q 1.5 , f 1 , y 1 . Simulator

Why differences?

P.C. See comments in IV-4.

3. What were the maximum indicated q, An?

P.C. Max q = 1200 lbs. Max An = 5.4.

4. What was the indicated recovery altitude?

P.C. Indicated recovery altitude? 70,000 ft.

5. Discuss any unusual or interesting occurrences during reentry.

P.C. I don't think there was anything unusual except for a little bit more jiggling as q built up. Well, I have had that jiggling before, but it seemed like we had just a little bit more, whopping back and forth, while it was getting aligned, directionally. There wasn't really anything disturbing about it - there was just slightly more of it than there was last time - mainly due to the fact that I had less going for me, you might say, as far as damping from the BCS.

6. Did the MH-96 system function properly during reentry?

P.C. MH-96 functioned as indicated. Aerodynamically it did fine.

7. Discuss lateral-directional stability and control during reentry.

(a) Compare with simulator.

P.C. Lateral directional stability and control is good - what I could see of it, during the reentry. I can't recall that there is much difference in our simulation of it.

P.C. Glide to high key and landing was normal.

2. Was the ground runout normal?

P.C. Ground runout was normal.

P.C. Reentry task was comparable with the last flight. In fact, all things considered, I think I did better than last time.

2. Compare the flight to the performance of the simulator.

P.C. Any differences we've already noted time and again, mostly involved with presentation and what to do about it.

3. Compare the flight to the controllability of the simulator.

P.C. Well, we seem to compare pretty well, in most respects, outside of quirks in the simulator itself.

4. What are your comments regarding the apogee predictor?

P.C. Well, after exhaustive investigation of how it did vs. what I did, vs. what correlation I made, I feel that we probably know what to do with it, afterwards. Apparently it worked pretty good for a first whack at it. One of us was so carried away with people beating on him about nor overshooting that he took pains not to.