Cessna Struts

Out of the 100-series service manual.

I'll do this in some abbrvtd method (I don't type more than I have to):

quote on

1. Remove valve cap and release all **AIR** (emphasis mine)
2. Remove valve housing
3. Compress strut completely
4. Fill strut with hydraulic fluid to valve hole
5. Get nose wheel off the ground
6. Replace valve housing and inflate: 35 psi (or 20 psi on the 150 and 50
psi on the 182 both models after the 1961 model year)

quote off

Note they said to release AIR and not nitrogen. They don't specify WHAT to
inflate with, so it is left to the A&P to determine the correct gas.
However, you might infer from the first instruction that they expect air.

Jim



"Don Hammer" wrote in message
news:1121375152.eb841dd4e866bfcb751910a2ac0e0572@t eranews...


Don't have the manual. Guess it says to use compressed air and not
nitrogen huh?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:43:17 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:

Out of the 100-series service manual.

I'll do this in some abbrvtd method (I don't type more than I have to):

quote on

1. Remove valve cap and release all **AIR** (emphasis mine)
2. Remove valve housing
3. Compress strut completely
4. Fill strut with hydraulic fluid to valve hole
5. Get nose wheel off the ground
6. Replace valve housing and inflate: 35 psi (or 20 psi on the 150 and 50
psi on the 182 both models after the 1961 model year)

quote off

Note they said to release AIR and not nitrogen. They don't specify WHAT to
inflate with, so it is left to the A&P to determine the correct gas.
However, you might infer from the first instruction that they expect air.

Jim

And "air " is what percentage nitrogen? Something like 78% nitrogen
and 21% oxygen.
That oxygen WILL slowly react with the oil in the strut, with any
rubber parts, and with the metal parts, particularly if the air is
moist. Granted, these reactions WILL stop over time, as the oxygen
gets depleted.
Nitrogen fill has NONE of these drawbacks, and NO downside over using
"air".

The advantages of "Nitrogen Fill" for tires have been debated for
decades, but the current informed opinion is that there are
significant benefits, and "aging" related deterioration of the tire is
markedly reduced.
Almost all good automotive and industrial "shock absorber"
applications use pressurized nitrogen fill - there is NO REASON not to
use nitrogen in place of air in an aircraft supension strut - and
several pretty convincing arguements for doing so.



"Don Hammer" wrote in message
news:1121375152.eb841dd4e866bfcb751910a2ac0e0572@ teranews...


Don't have the manual. Guess it says to use compressed air and not
nitrogen huh?