2. X-15 radios - They worked OK. I was reading "5 square" all the way through.

3. APUs - They were normal.

4. Damper System - It was normal.

5. Flow Direction Sensor - a was 2° at launch which was normal. b was about -1°. We seem to be getting this all the time.

6. Inertial system - It was normal.

7. Launch space positioning - It was perfect.

8. Launch transients (q, f, y) - Normal - we had just a slight roll-off and corrected for it. I did not hold in any left aileron but I corrected for it just unconsciously as we dropped.

9. Engine start - I got a very good engine start.

10. Unforeseen incidents - None.

2. Heating run (V » 4800, H » 75,000, 0 < a < 3°) - During the boost phase - the climbout - the main problem that we ran into was putting any faith in the angle of attack and the g meter. We knew that we were going higher, subsequently went higher because we were holding, throughout the pushover, some a which made us go about 10,000 feet higher than our proposed flight plan. Conditions in the cockpit just before burnout were about 5200 fps and 88,000 feet. The flight performance of the airplane was very good. In fact, we felt that we had quite a bit of thrust. There was no problem in trying to handle the airplane. Controllability was real good.

3. Controllability during heating run - Very good.

4. Rate control task q 2 , f 2 , y 2 . - There wasn't any problem in control of the airplane. It was just in trying to believe the readouts that the cockpit presentation was giving us.

5. Altitude profile versus simulator - It was higher but we knew that we were going higher because of the angle of attack and g readout. We had planned to do this in the simulator to begin with, so if there was any doubt about it we had planned to go high rather than low.

6. Unforeseen incidents - Other than the doubtful readouts that I was getting in the cockpit as far as altitude, velocity, angle of attack, and acceleration, there were no unforeseen incidents. We had the usual amount of smoke but it appeared to persist for some time - more than I have experienced in the past. We got the usual banging. The smoke did not get so bad I couldn't see the instruments. However, it persisted for quite some time.

2. Glide energy management versus simulation - I would say, as in the past, that the actual energy management versus simulation was much higher. In other words, we always appear to bring ourself in closer to the field at much more energy than what the simulator had called out. Even under unscheduled conditions.

3. Approach and landing - It was straight forward. I made a very high speed let down about 350 knots indicated with flaps out. I flared over the ground about 325 knots and held it off for at least a mile or so. I had drifted over to the east runway marker and I looked over and it appeared I had an object about 1/2 mile in front of me and I thought it might be a cameraman. It turned out to be just a discoloration on the black top itself, so I cranked the airplane around trying to get it back on the runway. I over controlled just a little bit and climbed a little - seesawed. No problem in the flare as far as controlling the airplane. I had gotten away from this tendency of the airplane wanting to fly with the adaptive system. If you get right close to the ground and just let it set there, just a few feet above, then as the airplane slows down she will just want to touch down. Otherwise, if you flare high then you're going to have to force the airplane on the ground because it wants to keep flying, regardless of how slow the airspeed gets.

4. Unforeseen incidents - None.
 

I was on the center stick for about 10 seconds, probably not even that much, trying to make a high rate turn back into the field. After flying with the sidestick for so long I would prefer, for high maneuvering rates, the side arm, mainly because it has better mechanical advantage and partly because I've been used to it. You really have to put forth quite a bit of effort when you're flying with the center stick - both in pitch and roll. So, to keep up my high maneuvering rates, I just decided to go back to the side arm. I'd rate the center stick about 2 1/2 in pitch and roll, and 2 for the side stick.

4. Deflection/An, trim follow up feature - For some reason when you're using the center stick, the trim follow-up doesn't seem to catch up with the center stick as it does with the side arm. I think the reason for this is psychological. You have so much mechanical advantage on the side arm that you don't really recognize any over force condition. On the side arm control you really don't notice it but on the center stick you notice any little changes in force. It takes more effort to fly the X-15-3 with the center stick than with the side arm. I think that as far as a real evaluation between the two, this is what was actually more pronounced to me. This is just peculiar to No. 3 airplane. However, even with No. 1 I think that the fact that we are more familiar with the side arm is why we would rather go ahead and .fly the airplane with it.

5. Deadband, breakout force - No comments.

6. Over control, P.I.O. tendency - If anything I believe that you would under control somewhat with the center stick compared to the side arm. This is why in the past some of the people stated that they would rather land with the center than the side stick when they were not used to the side arm. Once you get used to the side arm you know just how much of a rate to put in so you actually school yourself to flying with this, and once you get used to it you like it.

7. Longitudinal acceleration effect - Longitudinal acceleration would be a problem with the center stick. Mainly because the mass of your hand would want to be driven back like the rest of your body and you would have to exert a real effort to keep a push force. We have done this in the past and you always end up not getting an angle of attack or theta. After the power is off you have a tremendous deceleration. Here again, that's somewhat of a problem to use the center stick. Acceleration doesn't seem to hamper any control input you want to put in with the side stick. Under acceleration, once you get the power on 100% you essentially flatten out in the back of the airplane. You can appreciate what a task it would be flying with the center stick. I really noticed the deceleration today because I was biting down into the atmosphere and trying to get slowed down and I got to the point where I felt like I was half way between the seat and the instrument panel. Although I was pretty well strapped in. I got a tremendous deceleration rate. I would estimate it at probably 2 1/2 g. It felt every bit as much as a positive g under power. This is actually the first time I have experienced this much g on deceleration. This was some time after burnout. At burnout we were at pretty low q conditions, about 900 psf. When we came back into the atmosphere with speed brakes open we really slowed down in a hurry. We were skipping but we were skipping sideways.

8. Deflection ratio between pitch and roll control - The deflection ratio and the rates throughout all your Mach number range seemed to really be in harmony on the center stick. The only difference with the side arm is that it is quite a bit easier to get the same amount of deflection.