2. X-15 radios - were a little weak and garbled, or not garbled, but there was a good deal of hash or static side tone at first on the primary on the B-52 when we were on the intercom switch in the X-15 and then it cleared up. I don't know what the trouble was there. The radio check was good at whatever 22 min. point we made it. Then when we went to X-15 radios just prior to launch they weren't as loud and clear as they normally are it didn't seem to me like. They were a little weak, a little bit of static again.

3. APU's - were normal.

4. Damper System - worked normally.

5. Flow Direction Sensor - was normal.

6. Launch space positioning - was normal I guess. You can get that from the radar better.

7. Launch transients (q, f, y) - Pitch, I think, was pretty normal. Roll, I got a little bit of a right roll off. "It looked pretty good this time." No yaw that I could tell.

8. Engine start - started up real normally.

9. Unforeseen incidents - No unforeseen incidents in the prelaunch. "What about the beacon malfunction?" Well, I don't know on the beacon malfunction, don't know what the problem was, whether it was in the receiver or the transmitter, or what it was. "Just that we did have it?" Yes, we did have beacon problems.

2. q control - I'll say it was normal. I started out indicating about half a degree or a degree low on the vernier and why I didn't pick it up I don't know, but I'm sure I was looking at other instruments. I can't use that as an excuse because I don't recall anything that was diverting my attention from the cross check. At any rate I did notice that I was carrying it about a half degree low, so during the latter part of the constant 30° theta portion of the flight, I pulled it up to about a degree high. Where I picked it up actually was in q. q began to climb up above 700 and so I picked theta up during the latter portion of the burn. Actually I don't think I would have needed to. I think it would have been better if I had left it low because just about pushover time, which came on Milt's call right on time and right on indication from inertial platform, it looked like I was going to go a little high. Theta control was real good, no complaints on that.

3. Low a control - was normal, real good. I carried about a degree to a degree and a half, at times, negative alpha during the pushover portion in order to try and keep from peaking out too high. This was real easy to do. "No problem holding it?" No problem holding it right where I wanted it. "No directional problems?" No, no directional problems at all Just solid as a rock and I was geared to pull it back to positive alpha condition because I did expect a little bit of a directional problem and particularly I was watching the dampers. In case they started to flicker at all I was going to go right to positive, but no problem at all. "Speed brakes were closed for this portion?" That's right.

4. Altitude profile versus simulator - It was real close up to the pushover again and from pushover to peak, somewhere along in there, we got a little high. We may have had high thrust. Now, I guess we had about a second and a half less burn time than we had programmed on the simulator so we may have had a little higher thrust and that could easily have made us go high. "Did the engine actually burn out or did you shut it off?" It burned out.

5. Unforeseen incidents - none in that portion of the flight.

2. Rate the pitch pulse response for adaptive and fixed gains -

Adaptive q 2.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

Fixed q 3 , f 2 , y 2 .

"Here you are going to have to be careful on how you rate these, whether it is just airplane response or -" Yes, what do you want, because there was no controllability as far as the pulses - "Pitch is just airplane response." Damping, wouldn't that be a better term to the disturbance? "Right" Well, the damping to the disturbances it is going - OK, well I won't give you a Cooper rating because that won't mean anything to the damping. "There was no control task there?" No, there was no control task there. I would say that in fixed gain damping was maybe - I don't even know how to say it other than probably time to a half amplitude or time to fully damped conditions was maybe another half cycle in fixed gain. "Versus adaptive?" Versus adaptive, yes. Just about what I had seen on the simulator except I had to look out the window to catch it in the airplane. I couldn't see it in the simulator. It may be that I wasn't putting as healthy an input in the airplane as I did on the simulator. The first input wasn't, I couldn't see anything at all on it. I put in another one in adaptive and then one to compare it with in fixed. "Could you give us a rating in adaptive, any kind of a rating in pitch, a Cooper rating?" Yes, in pitch 2 1/2 and roll 2 and yaw 2. In fixed gain I would say - maybe 3 in pitch now, you want adaptive in roll and yaw also? "Here I think controllability is more important, mainly in stopping the bank angle at the desired angle and how much overshoot we have?" Yes. "In both modes." Well, the same Cooper rating on roll and yaw for fixed gain in pitch, of course for the pulses in pitch.

3. Rate the roll maneuver for the adaptive and fixed gains -

Adaptive q 2.5 , f 3 , y 2 .

Fixed q 2.5 , f 4 , y 2 .

Here there was more of a task. I think I can give you ratings here. Pitch I would say again about 2.5, roll maybe 3 and yaw 2. In fixed gain pitch 2.5, roll perhaps 4 and yaw 2. The difference was more apparent in stopping the airplane on a desired bank angle. Response was - I couldn't tell much difference in response to be quite frank. I sure couldn't see any. I tried to put the same aileron input in and get the same roll rate going. When it would seem like the same roll did get going it seemed easier to stop in adaptive than in fixed gain. It seemed like you get a little overshoot in back in damping.

4. Rate the fixed pitch gain portion of the flight during glide -

Glide q 2.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

Approach q 2.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

Landing q 2.5 , f 2 , y 2 .

During the glide phase, pitch 2.5, roll and yaw 2 and I would say the same for approach and landing. The same numbers on all three. I couldn't tell any difference in landing the airplane fixed gain than in adaptive. However, as I mentioned before, the airplane seemed to be coming in a whole lot flatter this time than it has before. We were right on airspeed. All the way down to final we were on airspeed and the angle of descent seemed to be much more shallow than it has before and therefore, the rotation for the flare was less. There didn't seem to be as much of a requirement for an input. "Was there any turbulence?" Not a bit. "Real smooth?" Real smooth, just like glass all the way. Actually the motions were flatter this time than on previous flights. "Well, under normal conditions this type of flight needs no more than 20 per cent of the available gain."

5. How does the MH-96 fixed pitch gain compare with the SAS on #1, more favorable, less favorable, or the same -

Comparing the MH-96 system to the SAS system is real hard because as I said before it depends on the profile. If you want to set up an angle of attack and fly an angle of attack, I think probably that SAS is easier. If you want to set the airplane for zero g pushover and have a long zero g pushover it is probably easier to get set on it and stabilize with SAS than it is on the MH-96. You can trim right to zero g and then just touch it to keep yourself right on the desired alpha. "Are these the differences within the control system itself?" That is right. That is why it is hard to compare the two control systems. "Are there comparisons you can make on the basis of this one flight between the SAS and MH-96?" I don't know. "The disturbances?" You can't because you didn't get any damping. "OK, but you rolled the aircraft over and you did get damping." OK. "Compare pulses, for example, with what you have experienced before." Well, you are asking me to remember what the amplitude and the frequency of the pitch cycle was on SAS. You can get that better from your data than you can from me because I can't remember a month and half ago that clearly and compare it that accurately with this. If you want a comparison of airplane response or airplane damping you can get that from your data a lot better than you can from qualitative comparison that is two months or a month and a half old. "Would you say that the differences were so small that you weren't particularly aware of them?" Yes, that is right. "We would have to get it from the internal data." Yes, I think it would be a lot more fair to get it from that. As I say, and I think all the pilots will agree too, that if you want to compare the SAS system with the MH-96 system, it depends on what parameters you are trying to stabilize or trying to hold. "What the task is?" Yes, what the task is. I think probably the MH-96 is more favorable than the SAS but there are certain profiles that you could say are tailored to the SAS system that are real easy to fly with the SAS system. "The change in trim is the big difference." That is right.

6. Glide energy management versus simulation - was real close. I got over high q with more energy than I anticipated but I think I was late coming out on speed brakes. I didn't have them out as long as I did in the simulator, so that probably accounts for that.

7. Unforeseen incidents - again, the only unforeseen incidents were the flat glide angle which Bob Rushworth noticed and commented on. We were right on airspeed, everything looked normal except that we just didn't have the angle of descent. 0f course, there wasn't any wind out there today to speak of. Normally we have a little wind and that would account for some of it.