新型抗荷系统抗荷性能的离心机评价

目的探讨新型抗荷系统的抗荷性能。方法以9名志愿者作为受试者,在离心机 +Gz增长率为3．0 G／s条件下完成5项试验。①分别测定KH-x抗荷服(KH-x)、DC-x高空代偿服 (DC-x)、FLH-x高空海上联合救生服(FLH-x)配KT-x抗调器的抗荷性能;②分别测定受试者穿 KH-x、DC-x、FLH-x时抗荷正压呼吸的抗荷性能;③分别测定受试者穿KH-x、DG-x、FLH-x时抗荷系统的抗荷性能;④分别测定受试者穿KH-x、DC-x、FLH-x时,进行抗荷正压呼吸并做PHP动作,在 +6．5 G;的持续耐受时间;⑤分别测定受试者穿KH-x、DC-x、FLH-x时,进行抗荷正压呼吸并做 PHP动作,在+9．0 G;的持续耐受时间。结果KH-x抗荷服、DC-x高空代偿服、FLH-x高空海上联合救生服与抗调器配套的抗荷性能分别达到2．11±0．44 G、2．25±0．40 G、2．11±0．55 G;抗荷正压呼吸(PBG)的抗荷性能分别达到2．13±0．58 G、2．04±0．09 G、2．10±0．14 G;抗荷系统的抗荷性能分别达到4．07±0．12 G、4．04±0．09 G、4．10±0．22 G;受试者采用本抗荷系统,并做PHP动作,均通过+6．5 Gz／45 s和+9．0 Gz／15 s。结论新型抗荷系统的抗荷性能明显提高,在作抗荷动作情况下可满足我国高性能战斗机性能要求。     

使用大覆盖面抗荷服+Gz作用下中心血液动力学变化的仿真研究

目的　为阐明囊式抗荷系统是否会给心脏及大血管带来不良影响 ,对使用由不同大覆盖面积囊式抗荷服 (ECGS)与抗荷正压呼吸 (PBG)组成的抗荷系统在 8Gz 时的中心血液动力学变化进行数字仿真研究 ,以评价其对心脏的影响与防护作用。　方法　利用所建立的可仿真 Gz 与抗荷系统综合影响的多元非线性循环呼吸模型 ,对由两种ECGS(囊覆盖面积分别为 6 5 %和 90 % )与两种PBG(压力制度分别为 1 6kPa/G与 2 4kPa/G , 4Gz 启动 )组成的抗荷系统的抗荷效果及中心循环重要生理参数的变化进行仿真。　结果　仿真G耐力结果与国内外报道的人体离心机实验数据基本相符 ,验证了仿真模型的有效性。仿真结果表明 ,ECGS的抗荷性能虽随着囊覆盖面积的扩大及压力制度的提高而增加 ,但每搏输出量略有降低 ,心脏、大血管及其瓣膜受到损伤的可能性亦增大。PBG引起的高胸内压虽可使呼吸困难程度增加 ,却能在不增加心脏做功的情况下提高心水平的动脉压 ,增强防护效果 ,并可使心脏、大动脉血管及其瓣膜的跨壁压 /跨膜压幅度减小 ,从而使人体在高G防护下受损的可能性降低。　结论　由于PBG对 Gz 作用下中心血液动力学的改变具有正面影响 ,因而在抗荷装备中具有特殊应用价值。     

新型一体化飞行员防护系统的离心机评价

目的 通过人体离心机试验，对一种新型一体化飞行员防护系统的抗荷性能进行评价。方法 18名受试者进行一体化防护服(IPS)配抗调器、抗荷正压呼吸(PBG)以及全套系统抗荷性能试验，离心机增长率为3．0G／s。并做抗 9．OG。持续15s试验，测定其抗荷性能。结果 IPS配抗调器、抗荷正压呼吸、整套系统抗荷性能分别为2．38G、2．05G和4．13G。进行抗 9．0Gz持续15s试验的4名受试者均顺利通过，且疲劳程度较轻。结论 新型一体化飞行员防护系统抗荷性能良好。     

在高+Gz应激下人体血清睾酮和皮质醇水平的变化

目的　探讨加速度 (+Gz)应激对人体血清睾酮 (testosterone,T)和皮质醇 (cortisol,C)水平的影响 ,为飞行员高 +Gz 应激防护方法提供依据。　方法　 6名健康男性受试者分别进行抗荷代偿两用裤配抗荷调压器的抗荷效果试验、抗荷正压呼吸的抗荷效果试验、抗 9G持续 10s试验 ,测出所达到的G耐力 ,并采用放射免疫法检测 +Gz 暴露前、暴露后即刻及次日晨的血清T和C水平。　结果　①受试者 3次 +Gz 暴露所达到的 +Gz 耐力分别为 6 .2 1± 0 .4 9G、8.17± 0 .2 6G、9.0 3± 0 .10G ;② +Gz 暴露后血清T较 +Gz 暴露前有明显降低 ,C相对 +Gz 暴露前有明显升高 ;③ +Gz 暴露后次日晨血清T与C都有所恢复 ,但T高于 +Gz 暴露前水平 ,而C低于暴露前水平。　结论　 +Gz 应激对血清T和C影响显著 ,引起暂时性低T、高C ;促进T和C恢复的方法有待进一步研究。     

新型综合抗荷措施的防护效果研究

目的 研究以新型囊式抗荷系统、无胸部代偿的抗荷加压呼吸及PHP动作组成的新型综合抗荷措施防护效果;探讨采用该措施进行防护时伴有的疲劳、疼痛等问题。方法 6名被试者在载人离心机上进行了5组＋Gz暴露试验,分别为：1）基础＋Gz耐力试验（relaxedtolerance）：测定被试者不使用抗荷装备,不做抗荷动作时的＋Gz耐力。2）FLH—X联合救生服配KT—X抗荷调压器试验（FLH—X＋KT—X）：测定被试者穿FLH—X联合救生服配KT—X抗荷调压器时的＋Gz耐力。3）FLH—X-I-KT—X＋PBG试验（PBG）：测定被试者穿FLH—X联合救生服配KT—X抗荷调压器,戴TK—X保护头盔、YM—X加压供氧面罩配YTQ—X氧气调节器进行抗荷加压呼吸时的＋Gz耐力。4）6．5G持续45S试验（6．5G45S）：被试者使用与第3组试验相同的抗荷装备,进行＋6．5Gz持续45S的暴露。5）9．0G持续15S试验（9．0G15S）：被试者使用与第3组试验相同的抗荷装备,做PHP动作,进行＋9．0Gz持续15S的暴露。在每次试验结束后用主观量表记录被试者疲劳及疼痛的程度。结果试验中没有发生G—LOC（G—inducedlose of consciousness）。FLH-X联合救生服配KT—X抗荷调压器的抗荷效果为2．5G;PBG的抗荷效果为1．67G;被试者均完成了6．5G持续45S及9．0G持续15S试验。试验中被试者的颈、腰、臂及手部在＋Gz暴露时均出现过疼痛。结论 新型综合抗荷措施可以满足现代高性能战斗机的高G防护需要;该措施还应在高G导致的疼痛及颈部损伤的防护方面加以改进。     

高性能战斗机和歼击机飞行员肌力协调抗荷训练的效果分析

目的评价肌力协调抗荷训练对高性能战斗机飞行员和歼击机飞行员的抗G效果. 方法对象为44名高性能战斗机飞行员和99名歼击机飞行员.高性能战斗机飞行员初训后经2次复训,歼击机飞行员均为初训.肌力协调抗荷训练按训练大纲实施,训练前后测试做习惯的和规范的抗荷动作时的各项参数,推算+GZ耐力进行比较. 结果与训练前习惯抗荷动作相比,两组训练后规范抗荷动作时的大腿、小腿肌静力和维持时间增加,均有显著性意义(P<0.05);规范抗荷动作时的收缩压(SBP)与基础值相比,高性能战斗机飞行员SBP增加51.8±10.3 mm Hg,估算G耐力增加2.8±0.7 G,歼击机飞行员SBP增加46.0±13.2 mm Hg,G耐力增加2.6±0.7 G,差异均有显著性意义(P<0.01).高性能战斗机飞行员复训未达标率为27.27%,歼击机飞行员初训未达标率为48.48%,差异有显著性意义(P＜0.05). 结论肌力协调抗荷训练G防护效果有效,且复训明显好于初训.建议歼击机飞行员也进行复训.     

PHP动作与新型囊式抗荷系统的综合抗荷性能研究

目的 探讨离心机上新型囊式抗荷系统与PHP动作结合时的综合抗荷性能.方法 10名飞行员完成新型多囊式抗荷服的抗荷性能试验;6名志愿者完成新型囊式抗荷系统与PHP动作结合时的抗荷性能试验.结果 1)新型多囊式抗荷服抗荷性能为(2.60±0.17)G(P<0.01).2)志愿者采用新型囊式抗荷系统+Gz耐力为(8.35±0...     

机载分子筛制氧氧气系统及其配套抗荷装备的抗荷性能

目的 探讨机载分子筛制氧氧气系统及其配套抗荷装备的抗荷性能。方法 在载人离心机上对机载分子筛制氧氧气系统及礤配套抗荷装备进行物理试验，并有10名被试者参加人体生理试验，测定其抗荷性能。结果 各物理指标达到要求。抗荷服、抗荷正压呼吸、抗荷系统装备的抗荷性能分别为2．08、1．92和3．92G。6名进行抗6．5G／10s试验的被试者和3名进行抗9G／10s试验的被试者均顺利通过。结论 机载分子筛制氧氧气系统及其配套抗荷装备的抗荷性能可满足飞机性能要求。     

一种新型囊式抗荷系统的+Gz防护作用

目的在离心机上,研究新型囊式抗荷系统的抗荷性能,评估其抗荷作用.方法 6名男性被试者采用本囊式抗荷系统不做抗荷动作(AGSM),暴露于10～15 s的梯形+Gz曲线后,再暴露于+5～9 Gz 模拟空战动作曲线(SACM) ,并伴随腿部适度收紧.结果得到了该先进囊式抗荷系统的+Gz防护作用和被试者的+Gz时间耐力.本抗荷系统的抗荷效果为5.33±0.26 G,均顺利通过了+5～9 Gz SACM,且用力程度和疲劳程度均较低.结论本抗荷系统+Gz防护效果良好,其配套方案可行.     

抗荷训练器的训练效果观察

新一代战斗机装备部队对飞行员的身体素质提出了更高的要求,特别是要求飞行员要有更强的抗荷能力。如在做大速度半滚倒转改出时,加速度可达7.5 G,持续时间约20 s,G值增长率在3 G/s以上。在这种情况下,必须对改装新式战斗机的飞行员进行抗荷训练。 1 对象与方法 1.1 对象 20名受试者为我院疗养的歼击机飞行员,年龄30±3岁,身高171±11cm,体重69.6±10.1 kg,心眼距     

Determination of a pressure breathing schedule for improving +Gz tolerance.

A base of empirical data for developing optimal pressure breathing during +Gz (PBG) schedules is lacking. Relaxed +Gz-intensity tolerance with PBG was measured during gradual +Gz-onset rate centrifuge profiles using standard lightbar criteria. Constant PBG levels ranging from 18-73 mm Hg were randomly assigned. G-suit pressure followed the standard or an increased inflation schedule. Nine subjects wore a jerkin, CSU-15/P G-suit, and TLSS helmet and mask. With mean mask cavity pressures of 0, 18, 38, 60, and 73 mm Hg, corresponding +Gz-tolerances (mean +/- S.E.M.) were: 5.3 +/- 0.2, 5.8 +/- 0.1, 6.6 +/- 0.2, 7.3 +/- 0.3, and 7.5 +/- 0.3 Gz (linear correlation, r = 0.994). Increased G-suit pressure did not change the +Gz-tolerance improvement with PBG. The inverse of individual subject regression slopes ranged from 22.6 to 58.1 mm Hg/+Gz. Considering additional factors and adequate +Gz protection for all subjects while relaxed, the proposed schedule would apply 42 mm Hg PBG/+Gz beginning at +3.3 Gz with a maximum pressure of at least 73 mm Hg.     

离心机训练矫治+Gz耐力不良的高性能战斗机飞行员

目的 矫治两名＋Ｇｚ耐力不良的高性能战斗机飞行员。方法在离心机上高＋ＧＺ负荷下训练抗荷动作（ＡＧＳＭ）和加压呼吸（ＰＢＧ）动作。结果 ＡＧＳＭ的抗荷效果提高３．０－３．２５Ｇ,加压呼吸了系统的抗荷效果提高２．７５－３．０Ｇ,综合耐力比基础耐力高４．２５－４．５Ｇ,两人均顺利通过８Ｇ１０Ｓ的ＳＡＣＭ＋ＧＺ曲线,达到训练标准。     

扩大囊覆盖面积抗荷服＋Gz防护作用的计算机仿真研究

为检验所建立的心血管系统仿真模型，对扩大囊覆盖面积抗荷服的囊覆盖面积及压力制度地人体Ｇ耐力及心血管反应的影响进行了仿真实验，得到了与耿喜臣等离心机实验数据基本吻合的结果。     

新型侧管式抗荷装置与抗荷动作的综合防护性能

目的 对新型侧管式抗荷装备与抗荷动作的综合防护性能进行研究,探讨采用二者联合的方法对８Ｇ１０ｓ（增长率为２Ｇ／ｓ）高Ｇ进行防护的可行性。方法 在离心机上,＋Ｇｚ增长率为２Ｇ／ｓ,行测量９名飞行学员的基础＋Ｇｚ耐力,其中５名飞行学员采用新型侧管式抗荷服（ＮＫＨ）＋新型抗调器（ＮＫＴ）＋Ｌ－１动作（Ｌ－１）、另４名飞行学员采用新型侧管式代偿服务（ＤＮＣ）＋ＮＫＴ＋Ｌ－１,测定出其最大＋Ｇｚ耐力。结果５     

Pressure breathing without a counter-pressure vest does not impair acceleration tolerance up to 9 G

INTRODUCTION: This study was to determine whether safe and adequate G-protection by pressure breathing during G (PBG) could be maintained if the COMBAT EDGE counter-pressure vest were eliminated to ensure aircrew do not unnecessarily endure a possible in-flight discomfort or distraction. METHODS: Centrifuge exposures up to +9 Gz were completed by 11 subjects, including 5 F-15 aircrew, using PBG at 60 mmHg pressure with and without the counter-pressure vest. Additional G-exposures using pressures of 0, 30, and 45 mmHg were performed without the vest. RESULTS: Elimination of the COMBAT EDGE counter-pressure vest did not significantly reduce G-tolerance. During gradual onset G exposure, the mean G level reached with PBG was 8.4 G without the vest and 8.2 G with the vest. In comparison, 6.7 G was reached without PBG. Mean times at G with rapid onset G exposure were 59 and 60 s, respectively, compared with 49 s without PBG. PBG, with or without the vest, was preferred by all test subjects. PBG at 60 mmHg produced the highest G protection and was preferred by the test subjects over lesser pressures. Subjects reported no adverse effects from the use of PBG without chest counter-pressure. CONCLUSION: The use of PBG and the anti-G straining manuever (AGSM) together enhances G tolerance and comfort more than AGSM alone. Elimination of the counter-pressure vest during use of PBG does not hinder an individual's ability to reach +9 Gz or complete a short duration simulated aerial combat maneuver G exposure. Further research is needed to determine if use of PBG without chest counter-pressure increases fatigue during multiple sorties or produces other aeromedical problems in operational environments.     

G protection: interaction of straining maneuvers and positive pressure breathing

INTRODUCTION: G protection in the 39 Gripen aircraft is provided by a full coverage anti-G suit, a pressure-breathing system, and anti-G straining maneuvers (AGSM). The purpose was to study (1) the interaction of pressure breathing and AGSM while wearing an anti-G suit; and (2) the G-protective properties of the anti-G suit alone and in combination with the pressure-breathing system. METHODS: During rapid onset rate G-time profiles (< or =9 G), 10 subjects were investigated in 5 conditions: (I) sitting relaxed, without any G-protective garment; (II) sitting relaxed and wearing an anti-G suit; (III) sitting relaxed, wearing an anti-G suit, and pressure breathing; IV) wearing an anti-G suit and performing AGSM; and V) wearing an anti-G suit, pressure breathing, and performing AGSM. In supplementary experiments (n=9), the share of the anti-G suit protection afforded by the abdominal bladder was investigated. RESULTS: G tolerance was 3.4 Gz (range: 2.8-4.3) in condition I, > or = 6.5 Gz (4.5-9.0) in II, > or = 8.0 Gz (6.5-9.0) in III, > or = 8.9 Gz (8.5-9.0) in IV and > or = 9.0 Gz (8.5-9.0) in V. In the supplementary experiments, the anti-G suit afforded a 2.8-G protection, a third of which was contributed by the abdominal bladder. In the relaxed state, pressure applied to the airways was transmitted undistorted to the intrathoracic space. During AGSM, intrathoracic pressure rose to 10-14 kPa, regardless of whether AGSM was performed with or without pressure breathing. DISCUSSION: AND CONCLUSIONS: The anti-G suit and the pressure breathing system provide G protection of > or = 4.6 G, of which the anti-G suit contributes about 3.0 G. The C-protective properties of the anti-G suit and those of pressure breathing appears to be additive, whereas the G protection afforded by pressure breathing does not add to that provided by AGSM.