Tie Down test

I didn't like our El Cheapo tie-downs as much of a cheapskate as I can be, and after hearing of insurers denying claims (rumored anyway) after the SnF storm for aircraft that weren't properly tied down, I decided Abe's system at roughly $300 for the "all-in" 5-point package, was cheap insurance insurance. ;)

Ordered earlier this week. Told the co-owners that they're my treat to the group this year. We don't do a lot of backcountry stuff, but if anyone will over the next few years, it'll probably be me.

Probably be here next week. Will have them under the wings of 79M in the North 40 at OSH if anyone wants a good look at the setup.

If nothing else it'll be nice to have a good set of ropes in the back for when the FBO's broke and their tie-down ropes look like they've been around since they were originally mooring the Titanic. ;)
 
Cool. I would have liked to see the actual engine hoist test done on the last system, all we get is 'I ran out of pull' and then he goes to the truck and starts pulling at a vastly different, and much more advantageous angle.
Surely the blade tie down has to move more soil so will have a better resistance but I amn't buying the 1500lbs+ quoted because he is pulling almost horizontally.
 
If you trust manufacturer's numbers, there's a table on the Abe's website where they tested against a lot of competitors.

The fact that they concede losses in a number of soil types with only their three-point system and the competitor's pull numbers are a lot closer to theirs in many categories tends to lead me to give it at least a better than average chance of not being only marketing fluff, I think.

Ultimately I picked it over The Claw because that thing is bulky to shove in the baggage compartment and these plus their bag are much more (to me), "baggage or under-seat area friendly".

The above ground bars with pins through them seemed a little odd, in that they're just pins.

This thing with a mix of a "spade" shape plus pins driven through seemed simple, effective, and relatively light and friendly to carry in the bird.

The term "elegant design" came to mind. But the stronger double spade plus a cable between plus a pulley, part... Kinda screamed "fussy" to me, so we'll see.

I've blown $300 on stupider things, I guess. ;)
 
I've been using "The Claw" for a few years and I would love to see it included in a test like this. I'm pretty sure it's a decent solution (I only use it at Oshkosh these days) but I'd love to see the numbers.
 
tmcquinn said:
I've been using "The Claw" for a few years and I would love to see it included in a test like this. I'm pretty sure it's a decent solution (I only use it at Oshkosh these days) but I'd love to see the numbers.
Click to expand...

He did the Claw in his last test... Broke it, I think.
 
There is a video on Youtube that shows the Claw's metal failing during a pull test. That's not comforting, as it's what I own.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
TangoWhiskey said:
There is a video on Youtube that shows the Claw's metal failing during a pull test. That's not comforting, as it's what I own.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested at the load at failure. Anything will fail given enough load.
 
Here's the video with the Claw test. This one is flawed, as well, by pulling in the vertical, where most tie downs are installed so that your rope is at 45-60 degrees.

 
3 x 3' of rebar and a 3lb hammer is all you need.
 
Too many variables for me to digest, and having seen what happened at the big blow at OSH (flew over the next day) not sure anything better than "holds pretty good" makes any difference anyhow. If yours breaks loose first, it will be on top of the pile. If last, it will be on the bottom.

If you're flying a Cessna and depend on the rings, the strength of the rig won't matter anyway. Take a wrap around the strut to take the load off the rings.
 
Last edited:
From the mfgr's website

http://magnoliaoutdoors.com/Page74.html

Holds 1200 lbs. per Claw® – 3600 lbs of Holding Power

The "Claw®" is strategically located directly under tie-down points of aircraft to reduce tripping hazards.

Contrary to other systems, and the guidance provided in FAA circular AC-20-35C, the Claw system is not designed to be offset from the aircraft tiedown points.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Here's the video with the Claw test. This one is flawed, as well, by pulling in the vertical, where most tie downs are installed so that your rope is at 45-60 degrees.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the manufacturer of The Claw specifically state in their instructions that it's designed to be installed straight below the tie-down? I swear I read that somewhere.

If so, a vertical pull would be exactly the correct test for it. Anyone have their manual?
 
denverpilot said:
Doesn't the manufacturer of The Claw specifically state in their instructions that it's designed to be installed straight below the tie-down? I swear I read that somewhere.

If so, a vertical pull would be exactly the correct test for it. Anyone have their manual?
Click to expand...
Like in the post right above yours? :)

Yes, the Claw is supposed to have a vertical load.
 
you could have 3 ft concrete footings at oshkosh but as long as your neighbors in the north 40 all have crappy tie downs you're plane still ends up at the bottom of the pile.
 
tonycondon said:
you could have 3 ft concrete footings at oshkosh but as long as your neighbors in the north 40 all have crappy tie downs you're plane still ends up at the bottom of the pile.
Click to expand...

Tony. True, but your insurance claim is not denied. :)

Are you going to OSH? I hope to be there the first couple of days in my FD CTSW.
 
nope not planning on it. heading to iowa the last weekend of july for my dads birthday. otherwise all my vacation time is tied up in soaring this summer.
 
jnmeade said:
Tony. True, but your insurance claim is not denied. :)
Click to expand...

Honest to gosh, I've had friends who lost airplanes in the stupidest accidents imaginable. Fires, ditchings, taxied into stuff, etc. But never a denied insurance claim.

Why do you think the failure to have an aircraft properly (and define properly) tied down would put the owner at risk of being abandoned by the insurance company?

Do you know of any examples?

I think this is one of those bogeymen that people worry about, but doesn't really exist.
 
denverpilot said:
Doesn't the manufacturer of The Claw specifically state in their instructions that it's designed to be installed straight below the tie-down? I swear I read that somewhere.

If so, a vertical pull would be exactly the correct test for it. Anyone have their manual?
Click to expand...

I bought the claw in 2002 at OSH and that is EXACTLY how it was intended to be used.
 
kyleb said:
Why do you think the failure to have an aircraft properly (and define properly) tied down would put the owner at risk of being abandoned by the insurance company?

Do you know of any examples?
Click to expand...

So actually you're right... about mid-way through the audio.

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2011-04-11_JimLauerman-Avemco-SunNFunTornado.mp3 -- straight from the President of Avemco after SnF tornado.

But I'd rather not be the ***hole at the top of the pile, I guess.

Biggest single claim denial is "unapproved pilots".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top