Flight: 3-46-70
Date: August 10, 1965
Pilot: Capt. Joe Engle
PRELAUNCH AND LAUNCH PHASE
2. Damper system - Damper system failed in yaw at launch. It was reengaged and stayed engaged through about 30 seconds, up to about q. It dropped off again, we reengaged it and it stayed engaged another 20 - 30 seconds. Then it failed right at shutdown. I reengaged it and it stayed engaged again for another 20 seconds or so.
3. Launch transients - I didn't notice any particular launch transients. We had a pretty good roll off to the right, about 15 degrees or so, which didn't seem that much in the airplane.
4. Unforeseen incidents - The yaw damper failure was the only unforeseen incident in this phase.
2. q control - q wasn't particularly difficult to control, although I think I was a little bit out of trim as far as the pitch rate vernier wheel is concerned. When the yaw damper dropped off and I reset it and came back, I was about a degree to 2 degrees off on pitch. "Just lack of attention?" Yes, lack of attention more than anything else. It wasn't difficult holding it when I could concentrate on it.
3. Altitude profile versus simulator - I think the altitude profile is about as close as we could possibly get to the simulator. I shut down with about 5300 feet per second max showing on the velocity indicator, and about 148,000 feet. Because of the yaw damper failure, I got about 15 degrees angle of attack in rather than holding the 8 degrees that I had intended. So I think with this additional a plus 100 feet per second probably accounted for the 3,000 to 4,000 feet that we went high.
4. Unforeseen incidents - Again, the unforeseen incidents were nothing more than the yaw damper dropping off.
2. ยทy operation - Was pretty normal. I guess I let it get out to maybe 4 degrees during the ballistic portion of the flight, but it didn't seem like it wanted to run off any place. In other words, the rates it was diverting from zero were very slow and I could bring it back without any problem at all. I think it drifted off to the left and right at random. It didn't seem like it wanted to go the same direction every time.
3. Ballistic flight:
q 3 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .
b. Stability with BCS -
q 1 1/2 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .
q 2 , f 1 1/2 , y 2 .
When the yaw damper would drop off, the stability was a little lower. It wasn't divergent by any means, but it would drift off from zero sideslip slightly. During the terminal part of the reentry (High g, high q):
q 3 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .
5. Glide energy management versus simulation - Energy management was very much like the simulator. There wasn't any difficulty in eye-balling the field and determining what course of action to take as far as speed brakes and either going to higher or lower dynamic pressure. I think each flight gets to be a little easier to determine what to do as far as managing energy back to the field.
6. Approach and landing - Were normal with the exception of the yaw damper again, which dropped off, I'd say maybe twice in the pattern, perhaps more than that. I would say overall the yaw damper dropped off at least a dozen and a half times during the flight.
7. Unforeseen incidents - This was the only unforeseen
incident.
q 3 , f 1 1/2 , y 1 1/2 .
Controlling pitch during the high g portion of the reentry.
Same ratings as terminal reentry. The airplane didn't feel uncomfortable
at any portion of the flight. Even when the yaw damper went off it was
more of an attention diversion than a controllability problem.