Question: Difference between FAR 23.397 and 23.143

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonathanpun
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference
AI Thread Summary
FAR 23.143 outlines the maximum pilot forces required for safe aircraft control and maneuverability, establishing a limit on the physical strength needed for normal operations. In contrast, FAR 23.397 specifies the maximum and minimum forces that can be applied to flight controls, ensuring that the aircraft can withstand pilot inputs without damage. FAR 23.398 further emphasizes that the loads on control surfaces must not exceed those resulting from the specified pilot forces. The minimum force in FAR 23.397 is considered relevant for scenarios like wind gust loads when the aircraft is stationary. Understanding these regulations requires a comprehensive view of the entire section from FAR 23.391 to 23.459.
jonathanpun
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Can anyone here can explain to me the difference between FAR23.397 and 23.143?
What's the maximum and minimum force represents in 23.397?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
143 gives the maximum permitted pilot forces to safely control and maneuver the aircraft.
398 says the maximum loads on the flight control surfaces must never exceed what would resullt from the given pilot forces.

In other words, 143 is a limit on the physical strength the pilot needs to have, to fly the plane "normally" in a safe manner. 398 says that if the pilot applies a greater force to the controls (for example in an emergency situation), the control system much stop the pilot from damaging the aircraft by applying excessive force to the control surfaces.
 
Last edited:
AlephZero said:
143 gives the maximum permitted pilot forces to safely control and maneuver the aircraft.
398 says the maximum loads on the flight control surfaces must never exceed what would resullt from the given pilot forces.

In other words, 143 is a limit on the physical strength the pilot needs to have, to fly the plane "normally" in a safe manner. 398 says that if the pilot applies a greater force to the controls (for example in an emergency situation), the control system much stop the pilot from damaging the aircraft by applying excessive force to the control surfaces.

Then I think that FAA will only quote the maximum force in 397. Why they quote the minimum force in 397? It's meaningless?
 
See the cross-reference in Note 2 to wind gust loads on the control surfaces when the aircraft is on the ground (section 415). That gives one use for the "minimum" values in the table in 397.

I'm not a "expert" on this part of FAR, but in general, it's hard to understand individual regulations without getting the big picture of how they fit together. Reading the whole section from 391 to 459 might help.
 
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
I need some assistance with calculating hp requirements for moving a load. - The 4000lb load is resting on ball bearing rails so friction is effectively zero and will be covered by my added power contingencies. Load: 4000lbs Distance to travel: 10 meters. Time to Travel: 7.5 seconds Need to accelerate the load from a stop to a nominal speed then decelerate coming to a stop. My power delivery method will be a gearmotor driving a gear rack. - I suspect the pinion gear to be about 3-4in in...
Back
Top