May I add to posts in the 200s referring to rudder inputs, as there were some questions:
Every aircraft has a rudder built in size and aerodynamic force adequate to stop the yaw induced by engine failure. On a B747 it is a lot larger than on the B737 due to the long arm force of the outboard engines, it could cover a one-side dual flameout (NOT discussing the performance capabilities at high GW here, only the induced yaw by failed engines on one side and max power on the other).
Otherwise, no commercial jet aircraft would be certified to operate if this was not possible.
The rudder on any commercial jet aircraft will be designed to cover this well, that means not by using maximum input, but rather large input under adverse conditions.
Not all too much larger. Much more may overstress the structure and would be absolutely fatal, if a pilot used full input on an overdimensioned rudder in a one-sided loss of thrust condition to recover from the yaw. It would rip off the tail section (New York A300 crash 2001 after encountering wake vortices and overcontrolling by rudder Yo-Yo). The B737 for example has a rudder pressure reducer to inhibit application of maximum rudder (for example by false hydraulic system behaviour), unless engine failure occurs at low altitudes (overriding the RPR system enabling full rudder).
Referring to previous writers, ANY aircraft would require almost full rudder input on an engine failure at takeoff (relatively low speed = low aerodynamic rudder effect) with full takeoff thrust on the opposite side in adverse conditions (worst: low gross weight meaning less speed, high takeoff power at low temperatures, like in a high obstacle climbout).
The rudder of the MD80 is of RATHER small dimension compared to wing-mounted engine aircrafts, for the reasons mentioned above, but sized sufficiently to recover from an engine failure under adverse conditions.
