Just because I'm a bit picky about such things...
Torque values in the form of ft/lb have been used above. The correct form is ft times lb (ft·lb). ft/lb is feet divided by pounds.
The first time I removed my sliders, it was not easy - corrosion, not over-torqued. Whether it was a good idea or not, I cleaned up the bolts and re-installed using anti-seize. I probably should have reduced the torque value due to lubrication but used the published recommendation. For some reason, these bolts are particularly prone to oxidation.
Not true. We use lb in, and lb ft in aviation manuals exclusively. The rule of thumb idiom is, you can move a pound a foot, but not a foot a pound. Right or wrong, that is what we use. I was told when I started in this business, that someone way smarter than I looked things up in an physics manual, and to use lb in., not in. lb. Been doing this now for 35 years.
A
pound-foot (
lb·ft or
lbf·ft) is a unit of
torque (a
pseudovector). One pound-foot is the torque created by one
pound force acting at a perpendicular distance of one
foot from a pivot point.
One pound-foot is exactly 1.3558179483314004
newton meters.
[note 1]
The name "pound-foot", intended to minimize confusion with the
foot-pound as a unit of
work, was apparently first proposed by British physicist
Arthur Mason Worthington.
[1] However,
foot-pound (
ft·lb or
ft·lbf) is also sometimes used interchangeably with "pound-foot" to express torque
