Challenges and Lessons Learned From Resurrecting a Legacy Research Flight Controller

Resurrecting the legacy Inner Loop Thrust Vectoring research flight controller to investigate the tail shock region brought unique challenges. This report documents these challenges and lessons learned from a stability and controls perspective. The flight test approach for flight envelope expansion and probing tests, as well as limited flight test results, are presented. Recent advances in sonic boom reduction technology have contributed to a resurgent interest in civilian supersonic cruise flight. These advances have focused only on fore body shaping, however, and little, if any, experimental flight data are available to develop and validate design tools for the tail shock region. In January of 2009, the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center completed research flights to investigate the tail shock region of a highly modified F-15 aircraft by probing the shock waves around it, using another F-15 aircraft. To adjust the lift distribution and plume shape, a decade-old research flight controller from the Inner Loop Thrust Vectoring project was required. To investigate the tail shock region, the lift distribution was changed by adjusting the canard position, and the plume shape was changed by adjusting the nozzle area and thrust vectoring

Stability and Controls Analysis and Flight Test Results of a 24-Foot Telescoping Nose Boom on an F-15B Airplane

The Quiet Spike(TradeMark) F-15B flight research program investigated supersonic shock reduction using a 24-ft telescoping nose boom on an F-15B airplane. The program goal was to collect flight data for model validation up to 1.8 Mach. In the area of stability and controls, the primary concerns were to assess the potential destabilizing effect of the oversized nose boom on the stability, controllability, and handling qualities of the airplane and to ensure adequate stability margins across the entire research flight envelope. This paper reports on the stability and control analytical methods, flight envelope clearance approach, and flight test results of the F-15B telescoping nose boom configuration. Also discussed are brief pilot commentary on typical piloting tasks and refueling tasks

Stability and Control Analysis of the F-15B Quiet SpikeTM Aircraft

The primary purpose of the Quiet Spike(TradeMark) flight research program was to analyze the aerodynamic, structural, and mechanical proof-of-concept of a large multi-stage telescoping nose spike installed on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Dryden Flight Research Center (Edwards, California) F-15B airplane. This report describes the preflight stability and control analysis performed to assess the effect of the spike on the stability, controllability, and handling qualities of the airplane; and to develop an envelope expansion approach to maintain safety of flight. The overall flight test objective was to collect flight data to validate the spike structural dynamics and loads model up to Mach 1.8. Other objectives included validating the mechanical feasibility of a morphing fuselage at operational conditions and determining the near-field shock wave characterization. The two main issues relevant to the stability and control objectives were the effects of the spike-influenced aerodynamics on the F-15B airplane flight dynamics, and the air data and angle-of-attack sensors. The analysis covered the sensitivity of the stability margins, and the handling qualities due to aerodynamic variation and the maneuvering limitations of the F-15B Quiet Spike configuration. The results of the analysis and the implications for the flight test program are also presented

Flight Test Results on the Stability and Control of the F-15 Quiet Spike(TradeMark) Aircraft

The Quiet Spike F-15B flight research program investigated supersonic shock reduction using a 24-ft sub-scale telescoping nose boom on an F-15B airplane. The program primary flight test objective was to collect flight data for aerodynamic and structural models validation up to 1.8 Mach. Other objectives were to validate the mechanical feasibility of a morphing fuselage at the operational conditions and determine the near-field shock wave characterization. The stability and controls objectives were to assess the effect of the spike on the stability, controllability, and handling qualities of the aircraft and to ensure adequate stability margins across the entire research flight envelop. The two main stability and controls issues were the effects of the telescoping nose boom influenced aerodynamics on the F-15B aircraft flight dynamics and air data and angle of attack sensors. This paper reports on the stability and controls flight envelope clearance methods and flight test analysis of the F-15B Quiet Spike. Brief pilot commentary on typical piloting tasks, approach and landing, refueling task, and air data sensitivity to the flight control system are also discussed in this report

Ziritaxestat, a novel autotaxin inhibitor, and lung function in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Importance There is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF. Design, Setting, and Participants The 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life). Results At the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –124.6 mL (95% CI, −178.0 to −71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –147.3 mL (95% CI, −199.8 to −94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, −52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and –173.9 mL (95% CI, −225.7 to −122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, −26.7 mL [95% CI, −100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –173.8 mL (95% CI, −209.2 to −138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –176.6 mL (95% CI, −211.4 to −141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, −46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and –174.9 mL (95% CI, −209.5 to −140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, −47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance Ziritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT0373344