What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Brake System Tubing Pressure Testing / Analysis

Noah

Well Known Member
I've been considering performing a hydrostatic pressure test on the brake system prior to putting in service. I'd rather find out now that I have a problem with a leaking joint (or worse). I recall reading sometime back that the Vans brake tubing might not really be up to the task, hence my concern and desire to perform a system-level test.

How to apply this pressure, and what pressure to apply?
I happen to have several compressed nitrogen cylinders in my shop, so developing whatever pressure is necessary isn't a problem. Filling the lines first might be a good idea to prevent a huge energy loss in case of a failure, as is done whenever hydrotesting high pressure stuff.

But what pressure to apply? The mechanical advantage of the brakes is 5:1.5 when pushing on the top of the pedals. Thus whatever force you apply at the pedals is multiplied by 3.33 at the master cylinder. I got my bathroom scale and put it against the wall, sat on the bathroom floor and pushed on the scale with my toes on one foot. I tried to put the amount of force I think I would use when doing a run-up, a healthy amount of force, but well below any significant amount of strain. That force was around 140 Lb. Then I figured I'd see how much force I could put on the scale with one foot which would be about the max that could be applied without really straining so much that I might hurt myself. This could be the force you might use while taxiing if somebody ran in front of your path and you needed to make an emergency stop. I measured that force at about 250 Lb.

So at the master cylinder, these forces are multiplied by the mechanical advantage of the pedal moment arms to yield 466 Lb and 833 Lbs. The matco master cylinder is 5/8 ID which works out to .31 square inches. Thus the fluid pressure at "run up" is 466/.31 = 1521 psi and at "maximum" is 833/.31 = 2713 psi.

OK, not a huge pressure for a hydraulic system. The Bonaco brakelines are made for 3000 psi operating pressure, no problem there. Hmm, better check that Vans 3003-O 1/4" tubing. Hoop stress in cylindrical tubing = Pr/t (Pressure * tubing radius / wall thickness). Vans tubing is .032 wall, so r/t is 3.9. Thus the stress in the tubing is 3.91 * the fluid pressure, or 5941 psi & 10,610 psi, respectively for my "run up" and "maximum". What's this, fully annealed (O condition) 3003 aluminum alloy has a yield stress of only 6000 psi, meaning that at that stress metal is bending permanently and not returning to its original shape?

Wow, so at my standard run-up pedal force of 140 Lbs, I am right on the hairy edge of permanently deforming my brake tubing. If I apply the maximum force I can "comfortably" apply (250 Lb), I will exceed the yield stress by (10,580/6000) or 76%! This entire discussion thus far has not even included a typical minimum safety factor of 2 for fluid applications - in fact there appears to be negative safety margin in the Vans brake tubing design. Indeed, Spruce lists 795 psi as the "max working pressure" for 1/4"OD .032 wall 3003-O tubing. So to stay under THIS number (includes safety factor of 2), you should NEVER put more than a 73 Lb force on your brake pedal - YIKES!

What to do? 5052-O tubing has a much higher yield stress of 13ksi, and comes in .049 wall standard, which will lower the stress in the tubing. This results in a tubing stress of 3880 psi for my run-up case, and 6929 psi for my "maximum can comfortably apply" case. With the higher yield 5052 tubing, these result in MUCH more comfortable safety factors of 3.35 and 1.88, respectively.

Looks like I will be ripping all the Vans supplied brake tubing out of my airplane before doing my pressure test since being on (over) the "hairy edge" is not comfortable for me!

Anybody want to buy some installed but never used 1/4" tubing?:rolleyes:
 
Sorry Noah, I can only think of close to 7000 reasons, ripping out your aluminum tubing might be overrkill!
 
FMVSS for auto brakes limits pedal pressure to 120 Lbs. IMHO most automotive brake pedal ergonomics permit higher apply forces than an RV, mostly because they are engineered for a single purpose (as opposed to being packaged with the rudder pedals).

I suggest you do a calculation to determine what the line pressure to skid the tires is. It will probably be less than the line pressure one could physically develop. This enables one to modulate pedal pressure at the level of impending skid for maximum braking.

If this still bothers you, purchase an adjustable pressure regulator from Beringer brakes and use your exisiting lines or replace them with teflon/braided SS lines. If you want to be really compulsive use -3 lines.

As JT noted, the vast majority of completed RVs are flying with aluminum lines. Any durability issues seem to be more related to vibration and bending fatigue than internal line pressure.

LarryT
 
I think this might be one of those exercises that might be entertaining to armchair engineer but certainly not spend any valuable building time trying to develop and install an elegant solution to a nonexistent problem.
 
Your numbers aren't correct. A friend of mine and I hooked a pressure gauge up to a brake to see what the pressures are. When one stood on the brakes it was just under 500psi and it took only 300psi to lock the brakes.
 
Noah, I have no idea if your calculations are correct, but I'm curious why you installed the brake lines before you did them?
The pressure reading on the installed system mentioned above seems compelling as well as the flying examples of the planes.
 
impressive math

Noah,
Your math is impressive.
Think of it in a more simplified manner.
Vans factory planes have in some cases several thousand hours on them using the same brake lines they ship with their kits.
6690 finished RVs most of which have kit supplied brake lines have not reported any failures.
Improper installation may have led to a few failures but other than that there simply is not a reason to suspect substandard choice of material.
Your most likely point of failure is a loose fitting or worse a fitting that has been over torqued. The latter is more common with people who want to do just a little better than the average guy and give the flare nut an extra half turn just to be on the safe side and thus weaken the flare in the aluminum tube.
Do as you wish but if I were you I'd leave it alone.
 
Your numbers aren't correct.

I'm not sure you can say that Bob. My numbers are measurements of force, moment arms and master cylinder area and very simple rudimentary engineering calculations. If I made an arithmetic error, I would certainly appreciate somebody pointing it out. I think you CAN say our results disagree. The question is, why?

A couple of thoughts come to mind. Perhaps the seat angle, distance to the pedals, or other geometric factors in an RV prevent you from applying as much load as I measured myself with my bathroom scale against the wall. I don't have any fluid in my brakelines yet and with no rudder on my airplane I can't replicate your test with a pressure gauge sitting in my airplane. Perhaps somebody else can provide a data point.

Or perhaps I have stronger legs than you. There certainly is wide variation in leg strength among the human population. I came across an interesting study online that measured braking pedal force among hundreds of people in both normal and "motivated" situations. The automotive limit from FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) of 120 Lbs is an interesting data point.

However, one thing is for sure. FAR23.395 specifies that "control system forces must be designed for the MAXIMUM EFFORT OF THE PILOT"... and "the design must provide a rugged system for service use"... Furthermore, FAR 23.397 specifies MINIMUM rudder force of 150 Lbs. Now you can say that we as homebuilders aren't bound to FAR23, but for me, it's a pretty good baseline to start from, what with many of its' subparts having been written in blood and all. Many builders often refer to their data plate which states "this aircraft... does not comply with the federal safety regulations for standard aircraft" with a statement like "it exceeds them". I get a chuckle out of that statement.

The bottom line is that I don't believe that this tubing, designed for low pressure instrumentation usage like pitot-static systems, could EVER be certified for use in a TC aircraft as hydraulic brakeline, since the MINIMUM REQUIRED pedal load of 150 Lbs, applied at the top of the pedal, WILL EXCEED tubing yield stress (at least given RV pedal geometry). You simply cannot exceed yield stress under normal (or even emergency) conditions in any TC application that I am aware of.

Now the service history argument is compelling, I'm not denying that. And it certainly makes me wonder more about the physics that might be occurring. Perhaps the tubing is getting cold worked when it is being overloaded, and is reaching a new and higher yield strength. This is entirely possible, perhaps likely. But in my humble opinion, no prudent engineer would EVER design a hydraulic system where you KNEW you were going to exceed tubing yield stress and rely on cold working the tubing to ensure that the system continued to function. Again, just my opinion.

I would also submit that a contributing factor to tubing fatigue failures (which are not unheard of in the fleet) could be cold-worked, work hardened tubing resulting from exceeding yield stress due to
fluid overpressure.

Hey, I'm not trying to convince anybody to do anything. I'm just outlining my thought process for ensuring that I am comfortable with this system in MY aircraft, as we are all required to do as the builder. I have demonstrated that MY LEGS can generate 250 Lbs of force, which translates to significantly overloading the yield stress in the brake tubing, and I am not comfortable leaving that as is, that's all. The additional $20 for more appropriate 5051 tubing and the extra 1.4 oz and the extra hour to install it are not a big deal to me. But that's just me. Y'all do what makes YOU happy!
 
The bottom line is that I don't believe that this tubing, designed for low pressure instrumentation usage like pitot-static systems, could EVER be certified for use in a TC aircraft as hydraulic brakeline, since the MINIMUM REQUIRED pedal load of 150 Lbs, applied at the top of the pedal, WILL EXCEED tubing yield stress (at least given RV pedal geometry). You simply cannot exceed yield stress under normal (or even emergency) conditions in any TC application that I am aware of.

I am not 100% certain, but am pretty sure that the same tubing was used on the single-engined Grummans (I know it was a solid line, and not a flex hose). They are certified, and have thousands of airplanes in the fleet. (The original mixture cable on the Yankee was also a choke cable from some lawn mower supply company, so it might make you question the "certification" process...)

Paul
 
After 12 years in service my plastic brake lines on my RV-4 started to weep. I chose to replace all of the pressure lines with Aeroquip teflon flex lines rated to 3000 psi. Brakes are now firm and reliable.

If allowed by Vans, I would use Aeroquip on my RV12 under construction.

Mitch

RV4 flying
RV12 under construction
 
17 years on my RV-6 built with the plastic and aluminum brake lines supplied with original kit. Plastic from reservoir to firewall; aluminum from firewall to calipers.

No leaks!
 
I am not 100% certain, but am pretty sure that the same tubing was used on the single-engined Grummans (I know it was a solid line, and not a flex hose). They are certified, and have thousands of airplanes in the fleet. (The original mixture cable on the Yankee was also a choke cable from some lawn mower supply company, so it might make you question the "certification" process...)

Paul
Paul, how could you possibly know what alloy was used without having a copy of Grumman American's drawing? I'm not saying that all aluminum tubing is inappropriate and could not be certified in a TC aircraft (clearly some alloys and configurations are). I am saying that I don't think fully annealed, 6000 psi yield 3003 alloy, .032 wall would meet TC requirements given what the regs quoted above say and what we know about the pedal geometry. Incidentally, many early aircraft like Grummans were not certified to Part 23 anyway, so you're right, they got away with a lot more than modern aircraft do.
 
Why use 'hoop stress'?

Noah,

I'm not a mechanical engineer but I don't understand how 'hoop stress' applies to this exercise. Your data indicates a max pressure of 2713 psi and the 3003 specification shows a 6000 psi tolerance. You are not using the tubing to contain the circumfrence of a cylinder; like the metal hoops on a barrel. I don't beleive you need go any further than the developed max. pressure vs. the rated pressure of the tubing (2713 vs. 6000 - a 2.2:1 safety margin).

Dave

PS How would the Bonaco's @ 3000 psi be safe?
DrH
 
Having a set...

Paul, how could you possibly know what alloy was used without having a copy of Grumman American's drawing? I'm not saying that all aluminum tubing is inappropriate and could not be certified in a TC aircraft (clearly some alloys and configurations are). I am saying that I don't think fully annealed, 6000 psi yield 3003 alloy, .032 wall would meet TC requirements given what the regs quoted above say and what we know about the pedal geometry. Incidentally, many early aircraft like Grummans were not certified to Part 23 anyway, so you're right, they got away with a lot more than modern aircraft do.

...of replacement Grumman brake lines (with PMA tags on them) hanging in my storage room...:^)

I can say that they are definitely of a much stiffer material than Vans brake lines. They are the same diameter, but you couldn't hand bend them easily in your hand like the softer Vans tubing.

I'll go and look and see if they still have a material printed on them, but they are definitely stiffer/harder than the RV tubing.
 
Noah,

I'm not a mechanical engineer but I don't understand how 'hoop stress' applies to this exercise. .

Dave

PS How would the Bonaco's @ 3000 psi be safe?
DrH

Fluid pressure and stress in the tubing, although both expressed in units of pressure or psi, are not the same thing. They are related by the hoop stress equation: Hoop Stress = Fluid Pressure * tubing radius / tubing thickness. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_stresses

...of replacement Grumman brake lines (with PMA tags on them) hanging in my storage room...:^)

I can say that they are definitely of a much stiffer material than Vans brake lines. They are the same diameter, but you couldn't hand bend them easily in your hand like the softer Vans tubing.

I'll go and look and see if they still have a material printed on them, but they are definitely stiffer/harder than the RV tubing.

Gil, while you're at it, see if you can determine the wall thickness. I realize that may be difficult if the tubing is flared, but you can get a good idea of the ID by sliding various size drill bits into the ID until one just fits. Measure the OD and half the difference is the wall. I'd be real surprised if this isn't .049 wall and 5052, which IS much stiffer than the Vans stuff.

Incidentally, I'm not the first guy to replace all my brakelines with 5052 - there have been lots of people who have done this. Search the archive for 5052 and brake line and you will find several examples. What I have never seen was a test or analysis of how much margin there is (or isn't) in the Vans tubing design.
 
I am an EE, not an ME, but your calculations don't seem to take the mechanical equivalent of electrical resistance into account. Thus, the resistance of the fluid caused by the small diameter brake lines might be reducing the actual pressures.

Also, I don't know if you would ever need to apply as much force as you are capable of providing. I mean, do people ever apply 250 pounds of force to their brake pedals?
 
I thought that it...

....
Also, I don't know if you would ever need to apply as much force as you are capable of providing. I mean, do people ever apply 250 pounds of force to their brake pedals?

..was high, but Part 23 has a design load of 150 pounds on the rudder pedals (no design margin included in that number) and says this for the brake controls...

Secondary controls, such as wheel brakes, spoilers, and tab controls, must be designed for the maximum forces that a pilot is likely to apply to those controls.

So I guess a limit load of 250 pounds is not too far out of line...:)
 
The brake lines are...

Gil, while you're at it, see if you can determine the wall thickness. I realize that may be difficult if the tubing is flared, but you can get a good idea of the ID by sliding various size drill bits into the ID until one just fits.
.....

...5052-0 and 0.250 diam wih 0.035 wall - printed right on the tubes....:)
 
Aren't you putting 800 pounds on the bolts and pedal linkage as well? Man, that's a lot for those little bits.
 
Jeff,

Re: "voltage drop" from resistance of the tubing.


I think Pressure would be equivalent to Voltage. Flow would be equivalent to Current. Thus in a static situation, no matter the resistance the pressure would be the same...
 
...5052-0 and 0.250 diam wih 0.035 wall - printed right on the tubes....:)
Thanks for checking on that, Gil. Never thought that the tubing might have the specs visible on it - DUH:D! So, with my 250 Lb pedal limit load, the Grumman brake tubing installed in an RV would work out to a tube stress of 9700 psi, and a safety Factor of 13,000/9,700 = 1.34. Quite appropriate for use in a Vans (or Grumman) aircraft. Also worth noting that this tubing is no heavier (ok, maybe a gram) than the Vans stuff.
 
I feel like I must be reading this wrong. Are we talking about exerting 500 lbs of force to the upper portion of the pedals from the normal pilot position? Have ya ever squatted 500 lbs? Leg pressed it maybe? Its pretty tough even in the best position. I just can't see it from the cockpit, nor can I imagine ever needing that kind of force.
 
Are we talking about exerting 500 lbs of force to the upper portion of the pedals from the normal pilot position?

Nope, not sure where you came up with that number. See Post #1 - 250 Lbs. That is the max value I measured with my right leg pushing against my bathroom scale held against the wall when I sat on the floor and pushed on the scale with the toes of my right foot. I was in a similar position, with a similar knee and foot angle, as I would have sitting in my RV - as best I could estimate it.

Again, FAR23.395 specifies that "control system forces must be designed for the MAXIMUM EFFORT OF THE PILOT". I am the pilot, and my maximum effort brake pedal load is therefore 250 Lbs. And trust me, I am of average build, and I don't spend much time in the gym.:D

But the real message in this thread is that the Vans supplied tubing will permanently deform due to its yield stress having been exceeded at a much lower pedal force of only 141 Lbs. The FAA specifies a MINIMUM pedal load of 150 Lbs for design.

Again, no prudent mechanical engineer or aircraft designer would ever design a system where yield stress in any component would be exceeded under normal (or even emergency) conditions, as this system seems to have been designed. This is why I will be replacing this tubing.
 
I am constantly amazed at the stuff that Gil knows how to find and/or look up! I went to look through my Grumman maintenance manual, and while it is very specific as to materials for most components, it doesn't assume that a mechanic is going to build new lines (despite the fact I have seen numerous ones built in the field....). So I stand corrected - they are 5052.

So Noah, if you figure that "no prudent mechanical engineer or aircraft designer would ever design a system where the yield stress in any component would be exceeded under normal (or even emergency) conditions", that basically says that you believe Van's engineers to be imprudent, or that you figure they missed this, or maybe they have calculated the loads in a different way than you did. I certainly hope that you believe it is the second or third (I'd like to know how they calculated it - I suspect they simply used slightly different conditions than you did), because if it is the first, then you'd have to be crazy to keep building an airplane designed by an imprudent engineer....

Paul
 
Last edited:
I apologize if I incorrectly assumed we were talking about pilots of the two-legged variety. 250 x 2 = 500. If you do have two feet, and each one is exerting 140 lbs at runup, I'd say you need better brakes.

Oh, and according to the wiki page to which you linked, our situation requires the thick-walled model be used.

Also, I must say I'm confused by all this hoop stress business. When a hose or tube says it can handle X psi and my system only operates at X-delta psi I have to do the hoop stress calc to see if I'm ok? Then why the heck do they even give the spec?
 
Last edited:
Suggest shelving argument and replacing calipers with pressure gages. Fill with 5606, sit in airplane, stand on brakes until either you or the pedals fail. Then you'll know how much you're getting. Empirical. BTW, deforming doesn't necessarily mean failure does it? I think swelling first. Then after deformation they work harden, so how you gonna calculate that? Just kidding. At some point your gonna damage your rudder system too (not kidding).
 
paper airplanes

Basically, it sounds like brake system is being ripped out because of some paper calculations and playing around with a bathroom scale. Wouldn't prudent engineering require some additional bench testing to verify valid input ranges, and that these inputs realize the calculated outputs, especially since field results do not support the calculated conclusion? I suddenly feel the need to go watch an episode of Myth Busters.

BTW, there have been reported failures of the brake lines, usually near the caliper, attributed to over-tightening or over-bending the tubes, resulting in hardening. These resulting field failures have led to a number of mods that have become popular on the rv brake system, including alternate fluids, bolts, and lines.

Thanks for sharing. It's interesting stuff, but perhaps more scientific method can be applied before concluding that the stock system is unsafe.
 
From what I have found so far this morning, it appears that the pressure ratings for pipe/tube are already based on the hoop-stress value to arrive at an acceptable system pressure rating. I haven't found an example to cite for aluminum tube, but I have found it for plastic pipe. I'll keep digging.
 
Several data points that differ:
Hoop Stress Calculations: Thin wall calculations applicable to material with "inner diameter/wall thickness ratio of at least 10 (often cited as 20)". Tubing in question has ~5.14 ratio (see dimensions below) or ~5.8 using your wall thickness of .032. In either case, the formula used is not appropriate (per wiki reference given in earlier post).

3003-0 tubing dimensions:
Measured wall thickness as .035 on tubing supplied by Van's. Consistent with stock from Wag-Aero (SKU L-347-375). Your data indicated .032 wall. I was not able to find 3003 tubing on Spruce web site. Unable to verify '795 psi max working pressure' reference.
Using Pipe Working Pressure Calculator (http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm) and this data:
Strength 3003-0: Yield 6000 psi (same as your data), Tensile 16000 psi. (http://www.wilkinsonsteel.com/Aluminum/3003.htm)

I compute the following:
Yield pressure = 2300 psi. ((2300-2713)/2300 ~18% over-stress at your max pressure)
Burst pressure = 6200 psi.

The Parker Paraflex N tubing supplied with the dual brake installation kit has a Working Pressure rating of 500 psi and a minimum burst rating of 2000 psi. This would seem to be the weakest link in the chain. I don't recall any reports of this tubing failing.

Respectfully,
Dave Hollingsworth
(Disclaimer: 'Rocket Scientist' (EE) not Mechanical Engineer):)
 
Master Cylinder specs

Hey, I'm no engineer and I didn't sleep at Holiday Inn last night but I think this discussion is way more complicated then it needs to be.

The May issue of Kit planes has an article on brake systems. It states that Matco Brakes are designed for 450 psi and Grove brakes performance claims are based on 600 psi. The Grove website shows the Max psi for 670 Series Master cylinder is 1200 psi. So I'm guessing you'd probably blow a seal before you burst a line. I'm sure the guys at Grove would be willing to answer technical questions if you called them.

That being said. I did use 5052 for the portion of my brake lines from the fuselage to caliper. This was the mechanical stresses on the lines, not for fluid pressure.


So how many engineers does it take to change a light bulb?:)
 
I'm not sure you can say that Bob. My numbers are measurements of force, moment arms and master cylinder area and very simple rudimentary engineering calculations. If I made an arithmetic error, I would certainly appreciate somebody pointing it out. I think you CAN say our results disagree. The question is, why?

Well, because your numbers are off. :)

We tested with an accurate (1%) pressure gauge I use to verify other pressure gauges. The purpose of the experiment was to determine the suitability of using Nylaflow tubing entirely for the brake lines, which are rated for 1000psi. We wanted to make sure there were adequate pressure margins. This was about four years ago and the Nylaflow brake lines have been performing just fine since then, with approximately 750 hours on the system. There are short pieces of aluminum line that run about 6" from the brake calipers and up the gear leg to get the plastic tubing away from the heat of hot brakes.
 
Many thanks to DRHolling and RocketBob for so aptly pointing out that the sky is not falling! I think I'll go outside now and go flying!:D
 
Trouble

Oh Great! Since I'm stuck at home for a few more hours while my truck is in the shop, I thought I'd verify my max. developed foot pressure via Noah's method. In my slightly under 4 ft. wide bathroom hallway, I placed the digital bathroom scale against the baseboard/wall. With my back against the opposite wall I found that the yield strength of the drywall just above the baseboard was 210 lbs.
If someone wants to calculate the exact pressure applied to the wall, they can do so by using a nickel for the area.........that's the size of the hole in the drywall I'll be fixing before my wife gets home from work!;)
 
lmao.gif
lmao.gif
lmao.gif
lmao.gif
lmao.gif
 
Lots of good input on this topic

First, Noah, let me say "thanks" for sharing your thoughts on the subject. It's not something I had considered before.

<snip>

OK, not a huge pressure for a hydraulic system. The Bonaco brakelines are made for 3000 psi operating pressure, no problem there. Hmm, better check that Vans 3003-O 1/4" tubing. Hoop stress in cylindrical tubing = Pr/t (Pressure * tubing radius / wall thickness). Vans tubing is .032 wall, so r/t is 3.9. Thus the stress in the tubing is 3.91 * the fluid pressure, or 5941 psi & 10,610 psi, respectively for my "run up" and "maximum". What's this, fully annealed (O condition) 3003 aluminum alloy has a yield stress of only 6000 psi, meaning that at that stress metal is bending permanently and not returning to its original shape?

<snip>

Noah,

I believe I've found one small error in your numbers. When calculating r/t, you need to use the inside radius, not the outside. For 1/4 OD tubing with 1/32 wall thickness, r/t would be equal to 3.

Also, it may also be that the mechanical advantage on the pedals shouldn't really be 5:1.5 or 3.33. Is it realistic that the pilot would be pressing on the upper edge of the pedal? Perhaps using 4:1.5 would be more realistic (giving room for your toes at the top of the pedal).

That said, your estimate of 250lb is probably not high enough if you consider the last paragraph in this description of an F-86 accident:

Joe Lynch's Last Flight

I am constantly amazed at the stuff that Gil knows how to find and/or look up!

Me too!

So Noah, if you figure that "no prudent mechanical engineer or aircraft designer would ever design a system where the yield stress in any component would be exceeded under normal (or even emergency) conditions", that basically says that you believe Van's engineers to be imprudent, or that you figure they missed this, or maybe they have calculated the loads in a different way than you did. I certainly hope that you believe it is the second or third (I'd like to know how they calculated it - I suspect they simply used slightly different conditions than you did), because if it is the first, then you'd have to be crazy to keep building an airplane designed by an imprudent engineer....

That's quite a sound line of reasoning. However having worked in the engineering field for ~20 years, I can say with 100% certainty that well-intentioned engineers miss things all the time. I hope to make it to the end of my career without any of my mistakes getting someone injured.

There's one other practical matter that hasn't been mentioned. 3003-O tube comes in a coil whereas 5052-O tube comes in straight sections. If I'm going to use 3003, I have to straighten it first before putting all the bends in. It almost seems easier to use 5052 tube from the get-go and gain the advantage of the higher yield strength as well.

I'm going to seriously consider using 5052-O tube on my brake lines.
 
Nope, not sure where you came up with that number. See Post #1 - 250 Lbs. That is the max value I measured with my right leg pushing against my bathroom scale held against the wall when I sat on the floor and pushed on the scale with the toes of my right foot. I was in a similar position, with a similar knee and foot angle, as I would have sitting in my RV - as best I could estimate it. <SNIP>

I think the "toe brake" geometry tends to limit brake force application mostly to extension of the toes (i.e. tensing the calves). Think about "standing on the brakes" in a plane - the bottom of the pedal is bottomed out, and leg extension is stopped by the knee contacting the seat bottom. Even if you were only making contact to the bathroom scale with your toes, are you sure your test didn't permit significant contribution by your quads? I think that would make a huge difference in the amount of applied force.

Maybe try repeating the test by using a spring scale connected inline with a cable running between the top of the pedal and the seat back.
 
I'd like to see the gorilla who can push 250 pounds (or even 150 pounds) with the ankle. Anyone who can push those numbers is likely to cause an extreme forward CG!

Yeah those numbers are possible, but only if you're pushing on the top of the rudder pedal with your heels. If you're doing that, you're not flying the airplane and if the plane doesn't flip, you're getting ready to crash anyway.

Try it with your toes and see what you get using the ankle.

This seems like a meaningless exercise of over thinking. Throwing unreasonable numbers into an equation is going to yield unreasonable results.

No one cares how much you can squat with your legs. You're using your legs to operate the rudder pedals. You're using your ankles and toes to operate the brakes.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Oh Great! Since I'm stuck at home for a few more hours while my truck is in the shop, I thought I'd verify my max. developed foot pressure via Noah's method. In my slightly under 4 ft. wide bathroom hallway, I placed the digital bathroom scale against the baseboard/wall. With my back against the opposite wall I found that the yield strength of the drywall just above the baseboard was 210 lbs.
If someone wants to calculate the exact pressure applied to the wall, they can do so by using a nickel for the area.........that's the size of the hole in the drywall I'll be fixing before my wife gets home from work!;)

You had me laughing out loud with this one. Thanks.
 
On the 7, the plastic lines are only feed lines from resevoir and not pressure lines.

I have the dual brakes installed on my 7A and the Paraflex N tubing is used between the right side master cylinders and the left side ones. They carry all the braking force applied from the right side.

From Phil:
<Snip>
"I'd like to see the gorilla who can push 250 pounds (or even 150 pounds) with the ankle. Anyone who can push those numbers is likely to cause an extreme forward CG!"
<Snip>

I weigh 220#:( and can easily lift myself up on the ball of one foot. Requires only the the calf and ankle. That's pretty close to 'gorilla' I guess. I'm betting most people can lift themselves up on the ball of one foot. Not too much of a stretch to imagine 250# of pressure using just your ankle.

Dave
(Working on reducing the left seat ballast:D)
 
Last edited:
Me too and I weigh 230, but that's a compeltely different ball game...

Go try it with Noah's method of putting a bathroom scale against the wall. The best I could ever get was 90lbs and I couldn't even maintain it.

Go try it, the results are completely different.
 
Lots of great comments

Lots of great comments on this thread, I'd like to respond to several of them, but with over 8 inches of rain in the last 2 days and a flooded basement, I just don't have time now.

Phil, I should have mentioned that when I did that I had my back braced up against the tub, so as to simulate the seat back. If you don't have some sort of brace behind you, the max load you can apply will be limited by friction and you'll just slide backwards. Try repeating the test with your back braced up against something strong?

I'll try to respond to some of the other comments tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Ouch, flooding.

Noah,
Hope you were able to get all the airplane parts out before the flooding (and other important things, I guess:)). Been a lot of coverage in the news about how bad the flooding is in your neck of the woods. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Dave
 
Autofrettage

Perhaps the tubing is getting cold worked when it is being overloaded, and is reaching a new and higher yield strength. This is entirely possible, perhaps likely.

This phenomenon actually is used routinely during manufacture of hydraulic lines and gun barrels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofrettage

I've never heard of any brake line ruptures in an RV. I have heard of fatigue failures at the connection point to the brake calipers - this seems like a more signficant problem (although it hasn't been for me). The only problem I've had in 600+ hours have been leakage of a master break cylinder (requiring rebuild), so I'd say the O-ring in the cylinder was the weak link in the system.
 
Holy ****!

Looks like a new primer-style thread to me!

I'm aware of RocketBob's Mythbusters style test. The gents involved are top notch; their results can be trusted.

So, all the calcs in the world re:system pressure capabilities lead to exactly nowhere, tho I sure can't say why. It's likely that 'garbage in/garbage out' process striking us upside the head. What I can say is that the max system pressure is less than 750PSI, as tested by trusted individuals. Let's go with that.

Thocker: good luck explaining the wall accident to your wife!

Carry on!
Mark
 
I apologize if I incorrectly assumed we were talking about pilots of the two-legged variety. 250 x 2 = 500. If you do have two feet, and each one is exerting 140 lbs at runup, I'd say you need better brakes.

I think you "incorrectly assume" that both feet are applying the force to generate the pressure... The last time I checked on RV brake design, the right and left sides are independent systems.:rolleyes:

Noah, thanks for the analysis; it makes a lot of sense to this 31-years-in-the-business EE.
 
But the one...

......

I'm aware of RocketBob's Mythbusters style test. The gents involved are top notch; their results can be trusted.

.....Mark

...missing data point from those tests is the actual force applied to the brake pedal -

"Enough" is not usually an engineering term....:)
 
Back
Top