The End of N222TF

[iamtheari]

What a painful thing to watch. I was thinking about this quite a bit when I had to tie my plane down last night. The FBO I planned to use no longer accepts transient planes, so I had to use the public tie-downs, which don't even have tail tie-down rings. I prefer rope but what I had handy was ratchet straps. Fortunately, the wind forecast while I have to leave the plane there isn't bad. But I still worry about the plane being held in place with just two straps.

For those who do use ratchet straps, make sure you secure them to the tie-down and to your plane with something more than the hook on the strap. I know someone who got a call to inform him that his plane had rocked free of the hooks and was only still tied down at one point.

 

[ktup-flyer]

What a painful thing to watch. I was thinking about this quite a bit when I had to tie my plane down last night. The FBO I planned to use no longer accepts transient planes, so I had to use the public tie-downs, which don't even have tail tie-down rings. I prefer rope but what I had handy was ratchet straps. Fortunately, the wind forecast while I have to leave the plane there isn't bad. But I still worry about the plane being held in place with just two straps.

For those who do use ratchet straps, make sure you secure them to the tie-down and to your plane with something more than the hook on the strap. I know someone who got a call to inform him that his plane had rocked free of the hooks and was only still tied down at one point.

I have the ones from Sportys that have the spring loaded hooks. I haven’t had any issues with them
https://www.sportys.com/all-weather-tie-down-kits.html

 

[iamtheari]

I have the ones from Sportys that have the spring loaded hooks. I haven’t had any issues with them
https://www.sportys.com/all-weather-tie-down-kits.html

I think it's good that they are cam-lock rather than ratcheting, too.

 

[ktup-flyer]

I think it's good that they are cam-lock rather than ratcheting, too.

Yea, I don’t like cranking down on the rings. They held last year during Oshkosh, so I think they’re pretty solid.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

For what it's worth, I can't insure my Mooney for what it's worth in today's market. If anything happened I'd not be able to buy one for what mine is insured for.

Why are you underinsured? Why do you say you can’t insure it for what it’s worth?

 

[rwellner98]

Why are you underinsured? Why do you say you can’t insure it for what it’s worth?

Steingar can speak for himself, but I'll share that I have two friends who are underinsured because they couldn't find anyone to write a policy for what aircraft are actually selling for today. So they are stuck with what the company will be willing to cover. For me, I was underinsured because I heard stories like that and didn't even bother to check what they would write a policy for. So, that's on me. I should have at least let them say "no" first, but you never think your ticket is gonna get punched.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Gotcha. Understandable.

Because the Peterson STCs are not super common, I complained to my broker and they contacted the insurer and said they’d increase the policy amount if a professional appraisal showed what the plane was worth. It’s basically a stated-value policy.

I asked what kind of appraisal they would take. I recall there were 3 types. Mine was a desktop appraisal where I sent photos and lists of upgrades, STCs, and logs to the appraiser. They turned it around in about 3 weeks if I recall. I can’t remember what it cost, I want to say about $300 at that time, maybe a tad more.

In a dynamic market, that may be a good option. But that was 3 years ago for me. I was underinsured last year, maybe correctly insured now, give or take a few $10k.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Chains are not good for tiedowns. But out here on the Canadian prairies, they make good windsocks.

 

[camorton]

I bought it for 103. Insured it for 120. If you can find me a 2002-ish m7-235 with a comparable IFR panel for 120k I'll pay you a thousand bucks finders fee. The two even remotely comparable ones I've seen so far were priced at 180 and 220.

Seems like $120K would buy a lot of repairs. Is there zero chance it could be restored for something under that? I guess you're still looking at many months without an airplane, but it would be like new when you got it back.

C.

 

[schmookeeg]

Okay, given both of your complete lack of empathy or sensitivity, I'll go ahead and say it on @rwellner98 's behalf.

Go have sexual relations with yourself.

Empathy would require them to have undergone this same misfortune.

Neither sympathy or sensitivity abound around here, and they're sort of right, since it's yet another notch in all of our insurance premiums to make OP less-than-whole. Sucks all around, for all. OP gets a large check to dry his tears on at least.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Chains, while obviously extremely strong, are excellent at absorbing the shock from sudden gusts. There's a reason that chain is used as an essential part of most every boat anchor, it is excellent at absorbing the shock of waves on the anchor rode to avoid disrupting the anchor. Chains work the same way for aircraft tie downs. They also don't generally deteriorate like rope does when exposed to continuous weather and sun.

 

[rwellner98]

Seems like $120K would buy a lot of repairs. Is there zero chance it could be restored for something under that? I guess you're still looking at many months without an airplane, but it would be like new when you got it back.

Nothing is finalized yet, but I wouldn't get a check for 120. I would get the wrecked airplane and a check for 80-100K because I would be buying it as salvage from the insurance company and getting only the difference in a check. The prop and engine need replacement and overhaul. Which combined would probably eat $50. Leave 30-50 for a new wing, new top, new doors, new windscreen, new control surfaces, new tail. Tons of small aluminum repairs. All new paint. Plus the risk of any currently unknown damage (engine cowl, other wing, bent fuselage, avionics damaged by rain, etc). It's pretty hard to make those numbers work.

OP gets a large check to dry his tears on at least.

I doubt there are many here that wouldn't rather have their airplane than lose 30-50% of their investment to a thunderstorm.

 

[steingar]

Why are you underinsured? Why do you say you can’t insure it for what it’s worth?

I pushed hard, but it's all I could get. I do want to stay with the same insurer for a bunch of reasons, so I can't get it insured for any more. They just won't.

 

[red4golf]

I never got them, but I have considered these in the past. The ease of use of ratchets + getting rid of the shock loading. https://aviationvibes.com/shop/shock-strap/



Yup, Alaska also. Anywhere you find enough wind to warrant chains, you'll also find chained planes with cracked spars from shock loading.



Yup. Climbing rope seems to have a great blend of cost/availability/strength/stretch. There are two kinds. Static and Dynamic. Static is the desirable one for aviation. Dynamic has a lot more stretch to catch a falling climber and too much stretch to be the best choice for aviation.

I graduated from a mountain warfare school at a place called pickle meadows early in my career. It was almost 30 years ago so I'm asking because I can't remember exactly. Static rope was used for securing loads either to the ground or to a climbers body. Dynamic rope was used for climbing and rappelling because the stretch associated with a shock was easier on the climber. The amount of stretch was based on the rope and part of the calculation. Some of the static rope that I have used would be as rough on a spar as a chain.

This is what I remember, am I wrong?

 

[iamtheari]

I doubt there are many here that wouldn't rather have their airplane than lose 30-50% of their investment to a thunderstorm.

Those of us who own airplanes already made the choice to prioritize having a plane instead of having (any) money. It would be devastating for that choice to be reversed for us.

 

[Zeldman]

I pushed hard, but it's all I could get. I do want to stay with the same insurer for a bunch of reasons, so I can't get it insured for any more. They just won't.

Did you try this approach.??



I would think it is unusual to not take in more money..

 

[Dan Thomas]

Chains, while obviously extremely strong, are excellent at absorbing the shock from sudden gusts. There's a reason that chain is used as an essential part of most every boat anchor, it is excellent at absorbing the shock of waves on the anchor rode to avoid disrupting the anchor. Chains work the same way for aircraft tie downs. They also don't generally deteriorate like rope does when exposed to continuous weather and sun.

A chain in the water is not the same as a chain between the ground and the wing. The boat's chain will have some sag in it, and yanking on it has to pull it straight against the water's drag.

Even at that, marine suppliers sell chain snubbers to reduce the shock on the boat. Nobody likes cracked or broken boat fittings.

 

[rwellner98]

I graduated from a mountain warfare school at a place called pickle meadows early in my career. It was almost 30 years ago so I'm asking because I can't remember exactly. Static rope was used for securing loads either to the ground or to a climbers body. Dynamic rope was used for climbing and rappelling because the stretch associated with a shock was easier on the climber. The amount of stretch was based on the rope and part of the calculation. Some of the static rope that I have used would be as rough on a spar as a chain.

This is what I remember, am I wrong?

Nope, not wrong. Just that in different contexts different amounts of stretch are desired. Static rope stretches about 5% (compare to 0% for a chain), which is plenty to soften shock loading, but not so much that the stretchiness itself is a liability. Dynamic rope stretches 40%, which is great for arresting a falling body, but (much) more than you want to secure a plane.

 

[SoonerAviator]

A chain in the water is not the same as a chain between the ground and the wing. The boat's chain will have some sag in it, and yanking on it has to pull it straight against the water's drag.

Even at that, marine suppliers sell chain snubbers to reduce the shock on the boat. Nobody likes cracked or broken boat fittings.

Chains on the tie-down will have slack as well unless you're putting them on with a binder and cranking it down. Works the same. Obviously it would be more effective in water due to drag among other things in an anchoring application, but the forces are the same be it water or air as the medium effecting force on the vessel/aircraft.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Chains on the tie-down will have slack as well unless you're putting them on with a binder and cranking it down. Works the same. Obviously it would be more effective in water due to drag among other things in an anchoring application, but the forces are the same be it water or air as the medium effecting force on the vessel/aircraft.

The sag of the chain on each side of the plane is symmetrical so the forces cancel out as the plane bounces or wags its wings. On a boat there is only one chain applying the force/drag. When the plane reaches the end of the slack of the chain it bottoms out, has no stretch and all of the shock loading goes into the wing. You're also talking about dozens and dozens of feet of chain for a boat, whereas you're only talking about 4-6' for a plane... so no chains do not have any (or negligible) shock absorbing properties in aviation.

 

[AKBill]

Chains on the tie-down will have slack as well unless you're putting them on with a binder and cranking it down

We used chains to tie down the P-3 Orion I worked on when bad weather was expected. A little difference in the weight of the airframe...

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

the forces are the same be it water or air as the medium effecting force on the vessel/aircraft.

Sorta. When you anchor with a chain, your anchor should be 5 to 10 times the depth of the water away from the boat - so you get a long saggy curve of chain. When you pull on it, you have to lift all that heavy chain before it becomes tight. When you chain an airplane down, the chains are purd near straight up and down so you don't get the long energy absorption from straightening the catenary curve of the chain.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Sorta. When you anchor with a chain, your anchor should be 5 to 10 times the depth of the water away from the boat - so you get a long saggy curve of chain. When you pull on it, you have to lift all that heavy chain before it becomes tight. When you chain an airplane down, the chains are purd near straight up and down so you don't get the long energy absorption from straightening the catenary curve of the chain.

Correct, having the correct amount of scope (and chain proportionate to the vessel) is paramount to keeping your anchor set. I'm just talking about the fact that there is slack in the chain to absorb gusts or the aircraft rocking in the wind, not that you have several feet of chain laying on the ground.

 

[cowtowner]

I love your videos, so sad to hear this about that plane. My wife actually commented one time after we watched one of them, that your plane was the perfect compromise between a plane that could go anywhere, and had the same speed as our Cherokee 180.

I hope you get back in the air.

 

[schmookeeg]

Chains, while obviously extremely strong, are excellent at absorbing the shock from sudden gusts. There's a reason that chain is used as an essential part of most every boat anchor, it is excellent at absorbing the shock of waves on the anchor rode to avoid disrupting the anchor. Chains work the same way for aircraft tie downs. They also don't generally deteriorate like rope does when exposed to continuous weather and sun.

We lost a C150 that was properly chained, in a similar freak situation to OP (and we were not carrying hull, so salty tears only) -- it ended up ripping the cable that the chains were attached to, presumably at a weak/corroded point.

It was a freak windstorm, "opposite to normal" winds (so plane pointed downwind) and had just had the fuel system serviced so not a drop of avgas making her 150# lighter than normal. Ish happens, I don't go bare on hull cover anymore.

 

[172andyou]

I'm just talking about the fact that there is slack in the chain to absorb gusts or the aircraft rocking in the wind, not that you have several feet of chain laying on the ground.

Re-read what people wrote above. You are dangerously incorrect and it could cause someone a bunch of unnecessary damage if they take your advice.

tl;dr chains are very bad news unless used exactly correctly. having slack is one way of using them incorrectly.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Correct, having the correct amount of scope (and chain proportionate to the vessel) is paramount to keeping your anchor set. I'm just talking about the fact that there is slack in the chain to absorb gusts or the aircraft rocking in the wind, not that you have several feet of chain laying on the ground.

Any slack in the tiedown chain will result in shock-loading of the airplane. Any. Even an inch or two. Chain does NOT absorb shocks. It transmits pretty much all of it.

 

[Dan Thomas]

This 172 suffered kinked struts and spar damage when the wind from a nearby tornado tore the tail tiedown ring out and pushed the airplane forward, hard. I'm wondering if chains had been used. This is the sort of damage they can do.

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

I was looking at a partnership recently in a 1979 180hp Tiger. Recent $65k avionics upgrade (within last year).

I asked the one partner about value and he said "I can tell you insurance would not insure for more than $125 as of our renewal in Feb 22, but we received an offer last month for $190. We'd need 3 of 4 to say sell (and we only have one looking to sell his share)."

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Is it possible to buy it on salvage and fix it yourself?

 

[Mtns2Skies]

Is it possible to buy it on salvage and fix it yourself?

Nothing is finalized yet, but I wouldn't get a check for 120. I would get the wrecked airplane and a check for 80-100K because I would be buying it as salvage from the insurance company and getting only the difference in a check. The prop and engine need replacement and overhaul. Which combined would probably eat $50. Leave 30-50 for a new wing, new top, new doors, new windscreen, new control surfaces, new tail. Tons of small aluminum repairs. All new paint. Plus the risk of any currently unknown damage (engine cowl, other wing, bent fuselage, avionics damaged by rain, etc). It's pretty hard to make those numbers work.

 

[camorton]

Nothing is finalized yet, but I wouldn't get a check for 120. I would get the wrecked airplane and a check for 80-100K because I would be buying it as salvage from the insurance company and getting only the difference in a check. ...It's pretty hard to make those numbers work.

I think they might, especially if the plane was worth as much as you said. Then consider the value if it had a new engine, prop, paint and everything else. Yeah, even if you had to kick in a considerable chunk of change over the $80-$100K that you get from insurance - as long as the delta makes the total investment less than the new market value, you're ahead of the game.

C.

 

[Salty]

Any slack in the tiedown chain will result in shock-loading of the airplane. Any. Even an inch or two. Chain does NOT absorb shocks. It transmits pretty much all of it.

I agree. I about got thrown out of the place awhile back for posting this heresy. If you’re going to chain, do NOT leave any slack. I’d rather not be tied down than use slack chains.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I agree. I about got thrown out of the place awhile back for posting this heresy. If you’re going to chain, do NOT leave any slack. I’d rather not be tied down than use slack chains.

Yup. And snug chains don't guarantee much. If a tire loses pressure, the chain goes slack.

 

[Whitney]

Ground screws, and 3/8 nylon rope has worked well for me.

Edited to add, the ground screws were bought at a pet store, advertised as good for tying up very large dogs.

 

[frfly172]

Painful to watch, good luck with your future endeavors, whatever choice you make.

 

[DMD3.]

Cracked spar or airplane blowing over... weather will always destroy airplanes if it's bad enough. I've seen several airplanes that were tied down destroyed when the wind ripped the tie-downs out of the ground. I've seen a plane destroyed when another plane that wasn't tied down properly blew into it. I've seen planes crushed in collapsed hangars. I've never seen one with a cracked spar because of a chain, but sounds like it happens.

Also airplanes that were hangared. A few years ago a tornado hit the airport in Eufaula Al.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I have used these, sometimes two of them per rope. It would take a bunch of lift to pull them out of the ground unless it was mostly sand. You need a steel bar, stuck through the eye, to screw them into the ground.



They are a miniature version of the anchors the powerline guys use to guy power poles. It takes many thousands of pounds to pull those big ones out, since they're screwed in eight feet and have a disc a foot or so across. If you want permanent, secure anchors for your airplane, these are them. We had a bunch installed in the aircraft parking area outside the shop. An airplane in a high wind can generate thousands of pounds of lift, far beyond the capacity of 3/8" ropes or ratchet straps. You need good stuff.

 

[172andyou]

I have used these, sometimes two of them per rope. It would take a bunch of lift to pull them out of the ground unless it was mostly sand. You need a steel bar, stuck through the eye, to screw them into the ground.

Is it possible, like at all, to use these in soil with rocks? I'm guessing not, but I've been wrong before.

 

[texasclouds]

She gone. RIP

I’d suggest when hangar space isn’t available, fly away from the weather.