2. X-15 radios - were all right, I think. After getting on theta the transmissions from NASA-l were really garbled until past peak altitude and starting back down. I don't know whether this was a ground radio problem or in the X-15. I think there was a comment made by either one of the chase pilots or the B-52 pilot that my transmissions from the X-15 were also weak. So, it may be that it is in the X-15.

3. APUs - No. 2 started up normally. No. 1 peaked out and the pressure held against the peg for it seemed like a little bit longer than normal. It always does go up and hold for a few seconds, but it worked all right from then on.

4. Damper system - worked real good.

5. Flow direction sensor - OK.

6. Launch space positioning - position at launch was all right.

7. Launch transients (q, f, y) - the launch transients were real low in all axes.

8. Engine start - was real normal.

9. Unforeseen incidents - no unforeseen incidents in this phase.

2. q control - was normal. It didn't seem to be any problem at all.

3. Low a control - We'll get to the a control later on here.

4. Altitude profile versus simulator - looked real good all the way through the burn profile. I think it would probably be real close to the simulator. In fact, I think we'll come out on the simulator real close to what we did on the flight. I pulled into 15° a based on what I saw on the altitude predictor after shut down and held it for somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 seconds I would guess. The altitude predictor started up then and as it came up closing in on 200,000 feet I started back on a, back to 0 a, and it just kept going on up to about 209, 210,000 feet which is what we peaked out at. It seemed to me like there's a possibility of a little bit of lag in that instrument in the airplane. It may just be something that looks like that in the cockpit.

5. Unforeseen incidents - No unforeseen incidents. "Did you notice b going off to the right near the end of the burnout?" No, I sure didn't. No, toward the end of the burnout I was watching the energy parameters on the platform real close, and wasn't really paying attention to b at that time.

2. Rate control task of performing ±5° roll oscillations -

q 3 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .

The control task during the 5° roll oscillations will be a little bit weird because we were on a hold and q hold, so there should be nothing but a l on that. However, it seemed like the airplane was real difficult to establish or to stabilize on a given angle of' attack. It wasn't that there was a lag in the hold mode picking it up. It was there all the time and it was real hard to make a correction with the little vernier wheel. "Did you notice the firing of the reaction rockets?" No.

I didn't notice any steam coming back. I had my head pretty much in the cockpit though, so they could well have been covering the windscreen with steam and I wouldn't have noticed it. So, I'd rate, during the initial portion, the a, even with the hold modes on, to be about a 3. The roll was real easy to perform. About a 1 1/2 on the roll, and 1 1/2 on yaw. I got a little bit of yaw oscillation although I didn't attempt to damp them out. They were in the neighborhood of one or two degrees at most until we started getting some angle of attack built in. "Were they in phase with the roll motion?" Right.

3. Discuss airplane response to these maneuvers - airplane response to roll was real good. Pitch, as I say, was a little sluggish. Airplane seemed a lot looser in pitch than the simulator had indicated.

4. Did increasing a alter airplane response or controllability during the oscillations? - the only thing that increasing a seemed to do was feed in a little more yaw which was to be expected. As a was increased on up to 15, 20° we started picking up some q again, so I think the q would be the more dominant factor.

5. Rate and discuss the task of setting up for reentry -

q 2 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .

The task for setting up for reentry was, again, on pitch about a 2, roll 1 1/2, and yaw 1 l/2. Coming down through 150,000 feet or so I could feel this longitudinal g. It felt like an oscillation but a was holding steady and pitch was holding steady. I thought afterwards that it was a g-suit valve fluctuating, but I don't know. It's something to look at on the trace. I guess the horizontal stabilizers were working pretty hard about that time and it was starting to pick up a little bit of q. I looked at g to see how much it was oscillating but it was holding steady. I didn't know what to think about it, but it wasn't going divergent, it was just steady for maybe 10 seconds at most. "Talk to Joe Walker about this. I think it's drag coming from the horizontal stabilizer. You said longitudinal g that time." I didn't mean it if I said it. I meant normal g "Normal g?" Yeah. It wasn't discomforting at all, but it was noticeable, and the fact that I didn't know what was causing it was puzzling at the time. The stick wasn't moving at all, but of course it doesn't have to.

6. Rate controllability during initial and terminal reentry phases -

Initial q 2 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .

Terminal q 2 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .

I think pitch would be about a 2, roll 1 1/2, and yaw 1 l/2. The terminal phase reentry was about the same numbers. There didn't seem to be any real problem during the q buildup.

7. Glide energy management versus simulation - We were higher on energy coming down and held a higher q coming back in. As far as having a feel in the cockpit for how the energy is coming and setting up for a landing I think, as I mentioned before, itÆs a lot easier in the airplane than it is in the simulator.

8. Approach and Landing - were normal other than this difference in airspeed indications between the chase airplane and the X-15 No. 3. It appeared that there was about a 20-knot error, or difference, all the way around the pattern. I didn't get any airspeed call outs after the flare or after rolling out on final after starting the flaps down, so I don't know what it is down around the 200 knot range, but in the 300 knot range there is apparently around 20 knots difference.

9. Unforeseen incidents - none.
 

The most adverse piloting task on the flight would be establishing a just after burnout. I would rate that about 2 1/2 on pitch, 1 1/2 on roll, and 1 1/2 on yaw. There just wasn't any problem in roll or yaw on this flight. And the pitch problem really isn't as big as I've made it out to be, probably but it's just that on this flight that was the biggest task, getting the pitch and a nailed. We didn't get real far off except for that point right after burnout where I went to 15° on a intentionally and then from there back to a low a for the remainder of the climb out portion. We just didn't get off of the program parameters as far as a and roll angle were concerned, so there weren't any big corrections to make.