Physical strength of legs for rudder.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Physical strength of legs for rudder.
On the medical forum, I was talking about strength of knees needed in modern transport aircraft, I guessed at 100-150lbs. Is there a stated figure for the physical power needed in failure configurations?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post2755671
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post2755671
Moderator
Current design standard (FAR 25.149(d)) is 150lb. The value has varied over the years according to the particular certification but, as best as I can recall, the only other figure of note was 180lb.
Gets interesting on some of the older birds after a while when the leg starts shaking uncontrollably ...
Gets interesting on some of the older birds after a while when the leg starts shaking uncontrollably ...
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely - can't vouch for the Meteor, but certainly the dear old Canberra (other than the PR9 with its powered rudder) was a right old "knee trembler" on one donk and you had to lock your leg straight on full rudder during an assy overshoot. If you didn't, it provided much amusement to the QFI next to you in the T4 as your leg gave a good imitation of someone with the DTs.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Thanks for that. Not a bad guesstimate after all.
My retirement job was on ATRs...okay in flight, but after loooong taxies rather wearing.
My retirement job was on ATRs...okay in flight, but after loooong taxies rather wearing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early long body 707's (with JT-4A engines) took a hell of a push on the rudder with an outboard failure at rotation, so much so that many guys had to raise their backside right off the cushion and prop themselves against the seat back, to keep the aeroplane straight.
Interesting times indeed.
Interesting times indeed.
The old DC3 (don't laugh) could be a bugger on one engine at heavy weights. I recall using 2 feet on one pedal (trim was wound over to the stop) while single-engine on a hot day somewhere in 'high' Africa! Betty Swollocks!
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early long body 707's (with JT-4A engines) took a hell of a push on the rudder with an outboard failure at rotation
In fact I cant remember now but I think there was a difference in the -300 and -400 as well
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Turkey
Age: 82
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
long time since I've had a fly in the Dak but, if I recall, it was 180lb ?
For lighties, the current rule is here and is 150lb.
For lighties, the current rule is here and is 150lb.
Do you happen to know how many lbs for a Canberra T4 at Crit Speed? It felt like about 300.
Regards,
Rod
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an antropometric Handbook :
Pressing Pedal .... age 31 - 50; A pedal 400mm length and 30mm wide, placed inside a 55mm wide space to restrict the amount of the foot that can be placed onto the pedal.
Sex Mean (Nm) S.D (Nm) Range (Nm)
Male 329,183 129,99 173,00 - 579.70
Female 237,99 106,80 121,50 - 435,60
So Rambo can push about 1450 N or about 300 lb
I have no idea, for how long this force can be maintained.
Pressing Pedal .... age 31 - 50; A pedal 400mm length and 30mm wide, placed inside a 55mm wide space to restrict the amount of the foot that can be placed onto the pedal.
Sex Mean (Nm) S.D (Nm) Range (Nm)
Male 329,183 129,99 173,00 - 579.70
Female 237,99 106,80 121,50 - 435,60
So Rambo can push about 1450 N or about 300 lb
I have no idea, for how long this force can be maintained.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rudder force required for the DC3 was/is indeed 180 Lb, which, at the time that I flew it, exceeded my body weight.
Maybe I should go back and do it again, now that my body weight is somewhat in excess of 180 Lb.
As John_T indicates, the requirement now is for a much more "sissy" 150 Lb.......
Regards,
Old Smokey
Maybe I should go back and do it again, now that my body weight is somewhat in excess of 180 Lb.
As John_T indicates, the requirement now is for a much more "sissy" 150 Lb.......
Regards,
Old Smokey
Moderator
.. I incline to a view that, at our mature stage of life, the body is in harmony with architectural splendour rather than the whippet gristle and muscle of our misspent youth ...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>The British ARB (CAA now) insisted on a fully boosted rudder and an increase in tab authority before BOAC could put them on the British register, for that very reason.
In fact I cant remember now but I think there was a difference in the -300 and -400 as well<<
Yes, and as I recall, this was at the insistance of DP Davies.
Operated the -300 (JT4A) extensively and the -400 less so, and I expect they were about the same....but you could be right, gas path.
In fact I cant remember now but I think there was a difference in the -300 and -400 as well<<
Yes, and as I recall, this was at the insistance of DP Davies.
Operated the -300 (JT4A) extensively and the -400 less so, and I expect they were about the same....but you could be right, gas path.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
On the medical forum, I was talking about strength of knees needed in modern transport aircraft, I guessed at 100-150lbs. Is there a stated figure for the physical power needed in failure configurations?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post2755671
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post2755671
Typically the first 22-25 lbs of rudder push does absolutely nothing. It's designed that way to avoid having accidental inputs when a lesser force is applied.
(A300)Below 165 kts(?) full rudder travel force was 66 lbs. At the accident speed (250 kts and still accelerating) full rudder force was 33 lbs, or 11 lbs above 'breakout' force.
Rudder travel below 165 kts was 3.8 inches. At accident speed was 1.3(?) inches.
Older jets (737/DC-9s/S-80's/727/707, etc) had this type of rudder design.
Newer Boeing products (747/757/767/777) keep a constant force and rudder travel requirement. IE 4 inches and 80 (?) lbs, at any speed gives you 100% of available rudder travel. But at higher speeds the rudder travel is restricted to avoid over controlling, and/or damaging the a/c.
I'm not aware of the medical standards but a friend returning from SEVERE pelvis/leg injuries (shattered from waist down...) had to fly a complete single engine pattern without using any rudder trim. First attempt wasn't successful. A month later he was strong enough to pass.
Psychophysiological entity
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
.. I incline to a view that, at our mature stage of life, the body is in harmony with architectural splendour rather than the whippet gristle and muscle of our misspent youth ...
Well, I never expected a response like this...though come to think of it, one of the few times that I have considered shouting MAYDAY, was on the ground in a DC3. I've posted on this before, but it was very serious. AMS and fast vehicular traffic on the right...down an embankment.
It was more to do with fading brakes, but my legs were giving out. The more stb engin, the faster I went. ANY reduction in power swung me towards the motorway. Taking off on the taxiway seemed the only option for a few horrible moments. But then the winds changed.
There was a captain at SEN in the early 60s. He would growl, smoke and drink...and occasionally speak. ASSISTANCE ON THE RUDDERS was one of the things he said to me. Young folk have no idea....CRM? God, that was ducking the captain's fist!
