Refueling steps
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Refueling steps
The plane I bought has what seems to be a refueling step on both the struts and another step on the front of the windshield. Is this a standard way of refueling? What are other alternatives? Can I install the easier style steps common in modern 172's instead? Thanks!
Reading your description, I thought I was reading about the later-style 172 steps.
There were no such "refueling steps" original to the 170. Refueling involved using common step-ladders, or stools purpose-built for the operation.
I've seen pilots stand on the strut while refueling, and they did so surprisingly far away from the fuselage. Keep in mind that the wing strut was not designed for such abuse. The strut was designed for loads in tension not in shear and not built with bending loads in mind (such as when they're stood upon.)
(I've always wondered why Cessna later encouraged that sort of thing. The only plausible response I've gotten is that by factory installation of the strut-step, they were attempting to insure that pilots placed their foot at the inboard location in which the step was installed, and not farther out.) The recent in-flight failure of a wing strut on a 172 might cause them some legal regrets for having encouraged the practice. (For those interested in the accident report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_ ... 064&akey=1 ) The short version is an instructional flight with a CFI and student was observed by non-aviation observers to be in a high-speed descent when one of the wings seperated, and the airplane spun into the ground. The wing strut was recovered and found to have "downward necking" with a 45-degree fracture. (I.E.-The strut broke not at the end-fittings, but at a mid-point after considerable stretching and thinning to the point of fracture.)
If you step on your strut, be certain to do it as close to the fuselage as possible.
There were no such "refueling steps" original to the 170. Refueling involved using common step-ladders, or stools purpose-built for the operation.
I've seen pilots stand on the strut while refueling, and they did so surprisingly far away from the fuselage. Keep in mind that the wing strut was not designed for such abuse. The strut was designed for loads in tension not in shear and not built with bending loads in mind (such as when they're stood upon.)
(I've always wondered why Cessna later encouraged that sort of thing. The only plausible response I've gotten is that by factory installation of the strut-step, they were attempting to insure that pilots placed their foot at the inboard location in which the step was installed, and not farther out.) The recent in-flight failure of a wing strut on a 172 might cause them some legal regrets for having encouraged the practice. (For those interested in the accident report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_ ... 064&akey=1 ) The short version is an instructional flight with a CFI and student was observed by non-aviation observers to be in a high-speed descent when one of the wings seperated, and the airplane spun into the ground. The wing strut was recovered and found to have "downward necking" with a 45-degree fracture. (I.E.-The strut broke not at the end-fittings, but at a mid-point after considerable stretching and thinning to the point of fracture.)
If you step on your strut, be certain to do it as close to the fuselage as possible.
172 strut failure
George, this lift strut failure you mention, isn't that either "the first" or certainly one of the first lift stut failures of a lift strutted cessna 120-140-170-172-175-180-185 aircraft? Maybe some may have come apart in a thunderstorm, but under other conditions I don't recall hearing of one. Do you have a year model?
I don't know of any strut-winged Cessnas coming apart in-flight for any wing and/or strut-related reason other than previous or improperly repaired damage. This recent production aircraft (2000 model), besides being operated outside it's design limits, is also rumored to have suffered a bent and subsequently improperly straightened strut. That report has yet to be confirmed. The investigation is on-going.