Rachet tie down question

Ozone

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
194
Location
Minnesota
Display Name

Display name:
Ozone
What’s the right rachet tie down strength to use for a single engine plane when using tie downs at a ramp?

At HarborFreight, they have tie downs rated from 400# up to 10k#. I’m thinking that you need tie downs to prevent the process of the plane lifting off the ground in the first place, and that the total strength is not as important.

That said, I’d like to hear opinions about appropriate strength for a tie down.
 
The problem with ratchets is knowing when to stop. You can crank them down hard enough to bend something.
Personally, I don't and wouldn't use ratchets. I use retired climbing ropes.
Yeah, I used to use rachets and was always worried about that, so I switched to boat ropes and long tent stakes from Lowes.
 
How much lift can your plane generate? If it’s a 1,500 airplane, it can lift itself off and then some. So three 500 lb straps will not be enough.

Make sure the straps have hooks that close, otherwise they can come unhooked as the plane wobbles in the wind.

I use ropes.
 
I use shock straps these days. They have the dual advantage of not shocking the plane when the wings pick up and providing a little bit of give, which makes it super easy to make sure everything is snug, but not pulling down on the wings. I just ratchet until the slack is taken up, then pull on the hook with my hand and if it takes more than 10lbs or so, then it's too tight.

1722782209716.png
 
You are just trying to hold it relatively in place, not ensure it never moves a centimeter. No need to tighten ratchet straps down to the point where you're bending or breaking something. The hooks do need to have a spring clasp to ensure they don't fall off if loosened. I would use a set rated for 3K or so (usually 1.25"-1.5" straps). Obviously rope works just fine, too.
 
They used chains at the flight school that were left a little loose.
I have a set of nice quality rachet straps with closed ends for the plane that came from Sportys. I found I needed short pieces of rope in some cases since the ratchet S hooks wouldn't work in all cases on some ramps.

I would not use HF rachets in less they sell really good ones. Your plane is too valuable to trust it to so so tie downs IMO.

I bought 4 motorcycle rachet style tie downs from Mac at Oshkosh. I used to buy Mac straps at the drag races. There is a huge difference in quality and price. Worth it as I had a cheap tie break wear out on my utility trailer on the way to Osh. They were bought a few years ago at the home depot and lasted me about 3 years.
I am still using my cam lock tie downs I got at the motorcycle shop from 20 years ago because they were on the same level as the MAc tie downs.
 
Last edited:
How much lift can your plane generate? If it’s a 1,500 airplane, it can lift itself off and then some. So three 500 lb straps will not be enough.
That's not how the math works. Before the ropes experience the first pound of pull, the wings have to be generating 1501 pounds of lift. For the ropes to experience 1500 pounds of pull, the wings have to be generating 3000 pounds of lift.

But in real life, I suppose the main problem is not going to be the amount of lift the wings can develop, at least in a conventional sense of an airfoil trying to fly, but when the winds come at an angle and want to tip the plane over.
 
Gotcha, thanks for the correction.

Off to watch some flying and cooking vids. I enjoy your stuff. Need more dog vids…
 
But in real life, I suppose the main problem is not going to be the amount of lift the wings can develop, at least in a conventional sense of an airfoil trying to fly, but when the winds come at an angle and want to tip the plane over.
This is pretty much how I look at it. You want the ropes (or whatever) tight enough that the airplane isn't doesn't start moving around and create a slack rope that the airplane can jerk against. That can (not does) either damage the airplane with sudden point loads, ultimately break the rope, or pull the anchor out of the ground, so now you have an airplane that only has 2 points tied down and it really can start to move against the remaining restraints.

As far as lifting power goes, for trigear aircraft, you need a lotta wind from the right direction to generate enough lift to break the ropes (or even lift the airplane) if its tied down in its normal relatively flat attitude.
 
That's not how the math works. Before the ropes experience the first pound of pull, the wings have to be generating 1501 pounds of lift. For the ropes to experience 1500 pounds of pull, the wings have to be generating 3000 pounds of lift.
I'm not sure this is accurate but someone smarter than me will have to explain it. if you have one of those silly high wing planes, tied down with rope, no slack, and you walk under the wing and with your index finger put upward pressure on the underside of the wing, the rope has pull/tension to it, and I don't think it's gonna be 2:1. ok now I'm tapping out to let someone else take over, and it can't be @Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe because he still thinks newton generates lift and we all know it's bernoulli.
 
The other problem I have with fancier tiedowns (ratchet, or the ones with the tube slack adjusters) is that they almost always use simple s-hooks as the connection to the plane. On something like a 172 in gusty wind, these things can rock and roll enough to release from the ring (unless you really overtighten them, which is bad as well). Learned that on my first trip to Oshkosh. Fortunately, I also had rope with me.
 
But that 1500 lb plane times its g load factor is what's needed to hold it on the ground.

1500 lbs x 3g = 4500 lbs

1500 lbs x 6g = 9000 lbs.

But if the wind is strong enough something is gonna break any way. Either the airplane or the strap.
 
Question: What’s the right rachet tie down strength to use for a single engine plane when using tie downs at a ramp?

Answer: ANY of them. Just make sure they don’t fall off.
 
I'm not sure this is accurate but someone smarter than me will have to explain it. if you have one of those silly high wing planes, tied down with rope, no slack, and you walk under the wing and with your index finger put upward pressure on the underside of the wing, the rope has pull/tension to it
Ok, that's fair. At a minimum because the tire flexes more or less as the weight on it changes. And, as I mentioned before, I think the tipping force is a bigger deal than the plane actually trying to fly, which reinforces your point as well.

The other problem I have with fancier tiedowns (ratchet, or the ones with the tube slack adjusters) is that they almost always use simple s-hooks as the connection to the plane. On something like a 172 in gusty wind, these things can rock and roll enough to release from the ring (unless you really overtighten them, which is bad as well). Learned that on my first trip to Oshkosh. Fortunately, I also had rope with me.
Yeah, always use a hook with a safety catch. The photo I pasted doesn't seem to have one, the ones I actually use absolutely do.
 
Friction straps, or learn how to tie a friction hitch knot.
 
he still thinks newton generates lift and we all know it's bernoulli.
I always thought it was magic. At least peoples eyes don't glaze over like they do trying to explain bernoulli
 
except that the 1500 pounds is cancelled out by the weight of the plane, so all you have to restrain is the "and then some" part
An airplane can generate an awful lot of lift tied down in the wind. A Cessna 172 has a Va (maneuvering speed) of 80 knots at 1600 pounds (basically empty), which means that a sudden full-up elevator application at that speed will generate 3.8 (structural load limit) times that 1600 before the wing stall and unloads the airplane and prevents structural failure. I get 6080 pounds of lift. Minus the 1600, we still see nearly 4500 pounds. That's assuming, of course, a high angle of attack to generate that lift, and trikes tend to sit pretty flat. The 172's control lock should be holding the elevator down some to prevent the nose from rising in the wind. If it isn't, the controls are misrigged.

Now, a 170, a taildragger, is in a lot more trouble. It sits a lot closer to its stall AoA, but still a few degrees short of it. It had better be tied down real good.

Many years ago an 85-MPH wind tore though our home airport where I learned to fly. 13 airplanes were torn loose from their moorings and destroyed. Some had used 2x6 boards stuck though an old tire and buried under the surface a foot or so, with the tire sticking out for the tiedown. Those were lifted right out; there was only a few hundred pounds of dirt to lift. Others were five-gallon buckets full of concrete buried a few inches below the surface. The airplanes yanked them out. Others just broke the ropes.

Where I worked before I retired we had a retired powerline lineman come, with his very own powerline truck with a hydraulic auger, and he brought anchors commonly used to anchor powerpole guy wires. A 5/8" or 3/4" thick steel rod about 7 feet long with an 8" spiral steel plate welded to the bottom end, and the top folded over and welded into a loop. That hydraulic auger was replaced with a square steel tube that fit over a square boss on the top of the spiral plate, around the rod, and those rods were screwed in until the loops were just barely clear of the surface. It would take a mighty big wind on any airplane to pull those out. Cost us about $100 apiece installed.

I often used to come across skinny little ropes, or rotting ropes, or cheapo ratchet straps, holding down $150K airplanes. It made no sense. Might as well not bother. It's like duct-taping the doors shut to keep thieves out.

They used chains at the flight school that were left a little loose.
Chains have been known to wreck the airplane. The airplane starts jerking around, and comes up suddenly against the chain as the slack is suddenly gone. Torn-out tiedown rings, damaged spars and/or struts. Not good at all.
 
An airplane can generate an awful lot of lift tied down in the wind. A Cessna 172 has a Va (maneuvering speed) of 80 knots at 1600 pounds (basically empty), which means that a sudden full-up elevator application at that speed will generate 3.8 (structural load limit) times that 1600 before the wing stall and unloads the airplane and prevents structural failure. I get 6080 pounds of lift. Minus the 1600, we still see nearly 4500 pounds. That's assuming, of course, a high angle of attack to generate that lift, and trikes tend to sit pretty flat. The 172's control lock should be holding the elevator down some to prevent the nose from rising in the wind. If it isn't, the controls are misrigged.

Now, a 170, a taildragger, is in a lot more trouble. It sits a lot closer to its stall AoA, but still a few degrees short of it. It had better be tied down real good.

Many years ago an 85-MPH wind tore though our home airport where I learned to fly. 13 airplanes were torn loose from their moorings and destroyed. Some had used 2x6 boards stuck though an old tire and buried under the surface a foot or so, with the tire sticking out for the tiedown. Those were lifted right out; there was only a few hundred pounds of dirt to lift. Others were five-gallon buckets full of concrete buried a few inches below the surface. The airplanes yanked them out. Others just broke the ropes.

Where I worked before I retired we had a retired powerline lineman come, with his very own powerline truck with a hydraulic auger, and he brought anchors commonly used to anchor powerpole guy wires. A 5/8" or 3/4" thick steel rod about 7 feet long with an 8" spiral steel plate welded to the bottom end, and the top folded over and welded into a loop. That hydraulic auger was replaced with a square steel tube that fit over a square boss on the top of the spiral plate, around the rod, and those rods were screwed in until the loops were just barely clear of the surface. It would take a mighty big wind on any airplane to pull those out. Cost us about $100 apiece installed.

I often used to come across skinny little ropes, or rotting ropes, or cheapo ratchet straps, holding down $150K airplanes. It made no sense. Might as well not bother. It's like duct-taping the doors shut to keep thieves out.


Chains have been known to wreck the airplane. The airplane starts jerking around, and comes up suddenly against the chain as the slack is suddenly gone. Torn-out tiedown rings, damaged spars and/or struts. Not good at all.
The flight school also had a large hangar that the trainers got put into ahead of big storms. Out in the sun and being flown by 3-5 students per day I bet any rope, nylon tie down would wear out pretty fast?
Now Sporty's did use rope and you better know the correct knots to use. It's the first thing they teach you.
 

Carabiners won't slip off, and its quick pull ratchet isn't going to over tighten. Your wing will bend before these break.
 
An 80 knot wind is a Cat II hurricane.
hurricanes are wimpy. A good midwestern thunderstorm generated 96 knots a few days ago, and a number of years ago 110 knots is what took the hangar apart that my Maule was in. Fortunately the part I was in (and the plow truck we were hiding under) stayed together.
 
^except that the 1500 pounds is cancelled out by the weight of the plane, so all you have to restrain is the "and then some" part
True but, if your plane is rated for utility category it is rated for 4.4 G’s (probably) So that amount of excess lift it can generate is 1500*4.4-1500 =5100lbs. So if you want to hold the plane down until it bends something you probably want something like 2500lb straps on each wing.
 
seems to me that the likelihood that the angle of attack to reach full lift is pretty much zero. I've always figured that tying down is at least in large part to keep the thing stable... so it doesn't start rocking and swaying, lifting a wing or a tail, etc...
 
The category load rating for the airplane probably has nothing to do with it bending on tie down…the loads are in a very different place than they are in flight.
Yup. What are the tie down eyelets rated for? I doubt they’re rated to hold the entirety of the max aircraft flight load.
 
hurricanes are wimpy. A good midwestern thunderstorm generated 96 knots a few days ago, and a number of years ago 110 knots is what took the hangar apart that my Maule was in. Fortunately the part I was in (and the plow truck we were hiding under) stayed together.
"It's not that the wind is blowing.... It's WHAT the wind is blowing."
 
Back
Top