On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:56:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

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?

They're not just unnecessary -- they're dangerous. That is 13
separate points of failure that should not be in that wing.

I've had several quick drains leak over the years -- one quite badly
-- now imagine 13 of them! All plumbing fittings, by their very
nature, will eventually leak. These will, too.

There's really no other way to put it: Cezzzna really screwed the
pooch with their wing design.

Our club's 172 SP had those drain points. As I recall, only 10 of them
were in the wing, with the other 3 on the cowling. I can only imagine the
pretzel fuel flow that made that many drains necessary. I agree with the
OP that suggested that Cessna's lawyers designed that aspect of their
planes.

AIUI, it's because they're bladders and folds on the bottom could
gather water. If it was a wet wing they wouldn't need as many, like
the older models.