Knotty Problem
 

Do the tech manuals detail the required knot to be used? Should be OK, has gaffa tape.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b4ec168e11.jpg

About 90 kts.... that 100 mph tape.

Isn't that strut in tension when airborne? The only worry then is the weight of the wing on the ground, so that gaffa tape should be fine...

I’d like to know how it was bent/damaged in the first place. Must have been some tricky manoeuvre 😳😳

A draggy bit of wood that. And that’s knotty as well...wood not be happy about it’s structural integrity, either
Good Q... how was it bent ?

What could possibly go wrong....

Aside from the extra parasitic drag and the fact that the wing is hanging lower, it would probably be airworthy.

An oldie but a goodie!

At least they remembered to chock the wheels.

I have the STC for this prop-blade repair:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2fa92e180.jpeg

I'm guessing someone tried either to lift the aircraft from the bottom, or pushed hard the wingtips down.. Third option someone reversed the car.. In any case I don't know why people think the wing strut is unbreakable/unbendable.

Think about this picture next time when you step on to check the fuel..

Plenty of Cessnas have footsteps strapped onto the struts for that very purpose.

Yep, and they were designed 40 years ago when the weight of an average American was around 70kg.
Fast forward 40 years later, we are heavier, the aircrafts too are getting older, everything has an "best before" date including steel wing struts..
I wonder why those steps are not installed on some other high wing aircrafts ?
​​​

I have often wondered why there is not a 'Weight limit' stencilled on said strut....or on that 'little tab step' on the fuselage, or in POH ??

(aircrafts? )

Considering the inflight loads I'd much rather step on this and bend it than get it in the air and find out. Yes the loads on it aren't the same things but if you stepping on it bends it then you were already in trouble and either that aircraft needs to go or you need to hit the gym :P

Materiel fatigue and structural damages are cumulative...

I get that and the idea that stepping on that step a few times a day for a couple of decades accumulates as well but I'd dare say it's a small percentage of the overall degradation that occurs from inflight stresses.

For the full story of what actually happened look up NTSB investigation docket CEN20CA112.. In essence,, bounced on landing, entered soft surface,nose gear collapse and a/c overturned. Simples....

Pretty sure even brand new ones still have them

Some airports I’ve been to had itty bitty ladders that made it easy to get over the top of the wing and check the level of fuel.

As to passengers getting heavier…

Minimal fuel load within limits, dump any extraneous material from your flight bag, make sure you have plenty of runway. Always remember weight and balance.

Way back when airlines had scales that they had the luggage AND PASSENGERS step onto so that they knew what they were carrying.

Joking apart, aircraft are light because they only have strength in the areas actually required and in the direction of the forces. So a strut like this has to support a compression load of the wing and full fuel on the ground, and a tension load of half the airceaft total weight in the air, (increased by the angle of the strut).

There will not necessarily be much strength in a sideways direction, e.g. to support a person standing on it, unless it has been designed to do so.

Is this repair an attempt at humor? Or is it known if it flew like this?

I'm quite happy to stand on the strut of any Cessna with a FOOTREST provided by the manufacturer.
This one is bent UP so impossible for a heavy foot to bend it like that.
From an engineer's point of view, calculating the stress from standing on the strut is kinda simple. Remember there will be minimal dynamic load or factor of safety considerations.