"Robert M. Gary" wrote

No one really knows. Some believe that there is one for every lawsuit
someone brought against Cessna because they forgot to drain the tanks.
Few actually believe that Cessna designed the tanks to collect water
at that many points. In anycase, we just drain them all.

From the pictures provided (by a link) in an earlier post, it is obvious
(with the help of some added color agent) that there are, or could be, some
very big problems if the tank is not drained at all of the provided drains.

Everyone knows that the airplane is a group of compromises flying in close
formation. It seems as though the tank design is a _big_ compromise, for
some reason.

It is hard for me to understand how Cessna could come up with such a poor
design. I do realize that a wet tank has to have internal structures in
place, with weight and strength being two of the most important design
criteria, but it does seem like it should be possible to leave some pass
through areas to let gas and water flow freely from bay to bay.

It might have cost a little more, but when you are spending, what, over 200
AMU's to buy an airplane, should it not be possible to include some design
improvements that costs a little more, than take the easy way out with
nearly a dozen added (should be) unnecessary drains?

If a tank design like that is Cessna's normal way of dong things, I would
think Columbia's future owners have some genuine concerns.
--
Jim in NC