2. X-15 radios - Because of the interference this was not normal. However, on X-15 radio we could get either four or five square operation. I could hear everybody.

3. APU's - They were normal.

4. Damper System - Other than 2 dropouts for 2 cycles after launch, they were normal.

5. Flow Direction Sensor - It was normal. In fact, that was what we used for the flight.

6. Launch Space Positioning - As we were getting it from NASA-l, it seemed to be right on. However, I really felt close into the field. I think that left roll could have gotten us off because I launched right with the B-52 and I didn't turn left purposely at launch.

7. Launch Transients (q, f, y) - q was normal. As far as the dampers going out, I'm sure that created a left roll. On trying to reengage them I would pull the side arm over slightly and probably aggravate the thing. (Q. Any da at launch?). I didn't have any input. I thought I would go ahead and try my normal procedure. When I reach down for the throttle, I normally put in a little left bank anyway. It seems to counteract this right roll and I am sure that this came. I didn't feel that right roll very much, in fact I never really feel it. I don't think that we got over 5° (You didn't deviate from your normal launch?) No, I didn't deviate from my normal launch technique on this. However, I did feel the left roll when we got into it.

8. Engine Start - It was without incident.

9. Unforeseen Incidents - Unforeseen incidents were the dampers cutting out and I still think we had some interference from that Giannini Probe on here. As far as reading 13° angle of attack and coming up slow on q - maybe we should look into that some more. I should have been in the buffet zone on this sort of thing, right? (You didn't feel any buffet?) No, I didn't feel any of the buffet whatever. In fact, I didn't feel any of the buffet on the flight whatsoever, even coming around the pattern where we had been reporting the whole aircraft shaking.

2. ^·y Operation - We had that on "standby". We did not use it at any time. We evidently had good ball nose operation.

3. Experiment Performance - Normal.

4. q Control - q control was very good. This was where the simulator paid off. By working around that 3° once we became level, as John Manke said, "you can make this airplane fly level, go downhill, or climb at 3° angle of attack," and we could actually hold our profile by using this method.

5. Low a Control - (You did go into negative a there?) I went to negative a because I felt I was somewhat high and purposely did this on the early portion of our burning time. This is not just coincidental, it was on purpose.

6. Altitude Profile versus Simulator - Because we were on our alternate cues and had practiced this so many times in the simulator, this is where the simulator really paid off and it was very comparable to the simulator. As far as other conditions throughout the flight, stable table, etc., we can't get a comparative analysis on that.

7. Unforeseen Incidents - This was the stable table going out and I can't quite say unforeseen because we had practiced for these pretty judiciously on the simulator. Also H-dot, and I hear tell after we got back down that we had about 2 to 3° off readings on the attitude indicator. I suspect that this thing was generally increasing in error during the flight. (Let me go back to low a.) No control problems in negative a to speak of. Of course, we weren't doing any pulses during the early burning and low angle of attack, low g portion here during the pushover, but the airplane handled very well. In fact, in the adaptive mode - we had tossed this around quite often about going to the fixed mode in pitch - I would say is where she does differ somewhat from the simulator, in that the airplane doesn't seem to oscillate around 0g in the adaptive mode as she does in the simulator. (Would you give me a pitch rating?) Pitch rating - I'd say about 2 on this, easily. (Is this for negative a control?) Right. Of course we were still down fairly low on Mach number, down around 2.8 - 3.2, somewhere around this.

2. Experiment Performance - (Very satisfactory)

3. Controllability with "fixed gain" Damping - There were no fixed gain pulses initiated because of the high energy turns into the field. I just didn't have time to get any fixed gain there and because of our stable platform not being reliable, we did not do any of our outer loops such as a, pitch and q holds.

4. Glide Energy Management versus Simulation - I would say that the actual aircraft seems to have a little bit more energy than the simulator. (Its hard to tell on this flight because we didn't have any good velocity or altitude.) That's right, it is hard to tell. This might be just a psychological thing. You might be going through your different phases a little slower than what you normally would on the simulator. Therefore, you end up down range more, I mean at a later date, on the same portion of your flight plan. (Maybe you anticipate a little more on the flight?) That could be, you could anticipate more, so it could be psychological. However, the simulator is checked out every day and as far as the glide phase everything comes out in energy. (You didn't feel that you were going to overrun the base?) No, I didn't feel I was going to overrun the base, but I felt that I had to do something to get into it. It was going to go by pretty fast.

5. Approach and Landing - (Tell me about your floating tendency). With the MH-96 system it was pretty hard to get this airplane on the ground. The airplane wants to keep flying about 20 feet off the ground, maybe a little less, and just before touchdown I found myself having to actually push forward on the stick. In fact, it wasn't a real stable maneuver. Of course, ground effect could have taken care of this too, but I felt like the airplane wanted to keep flying and keep climbing as the airspeed decreased and I find myself touching down at somewhat slower, 20-30 knots slower, then what I would like to. I saw 210 knots go by and I felt this time that I was climbing slightly and I was trying to make a discreet effort to get the airplane on the ground. In this respect, she differs from X-15-1 or 2.

6. Unforeseen Incidents - There were no unforeseen incidents during the glide phase except for the stable platform being out. We could not get our pulse data as we had planned. (You made a spot landing?) I would see the smoke but I wasn't really trying for the 2-mile marker. I was, by a matter of habit, just flaring somewhere about a mile, 5,000 ft, before I got to it. I believe I hit about 20 ft just before I got to it.