Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

The "Claw" tie down
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

One thing to remember is to use a rope or strap of

sufficient strenght when pulling at an angle.  A 45

degree angle reduces the strength of the rope in the

verticle plane by 30%.  You need to use a rope 30%

stronger to achieve the same verticle tie down

strength.  But I agree with the application.



How strong a rope are you all using?



That chain link idea with spikes thru it sounds kind'a

neat to me too.



Are there any tent or camping spikes strong enough to

work?  Or are they all too small?



Just learning from you all this time.... Usefull

subject to everyone.  



Kurt S.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Hmmmmm.  That link of chain adds a twist to

 this.  Maybe even two or three links, each with

 it's own spike and one link for the rope?

..................
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   > I think if you angled the holes so the spikes

 would be held at the angles and placed them so the

 aluminum triagle is parallel with the wing, it

 would have 30% more holding power than mine and if

 you could find titanium spikes it should be a sure

 winner.

 > Lowell


	


__________________________________________________

dan(at)azshowersolutions.
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Randy,

  The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.

  Dan



Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		                David,  (Or others),

  The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable  3%.

   

  Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s design better.

   

  Sorry to be so late coming to this thread.

   

  Randy

   

    .           



   

        

  From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: The "Claw" tie down



   

    On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft  tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

clemwehner(at)sbcglobal.n
Guest

Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Here's  something to think about. Consider how much lift our wings can produce. In a 40  mph wind the wings can easily generate 600 lbs of lift,  likely a lot more  if the angle of attack is high, or the winds are higher.  

  

 I  remember when I was a USAF C-141 pilot (4-engine jet transport).  At our  base here in Oklahoma with storms coming with expected straight line winds of  85-90 mph, maintenance tied down each aircraft with six 10,000 lb strength  tie-down chains, thinking that should do it.  The winds came and some  of the aircraft snapped all the chains and got moved around the ramp. In  retrospect, the C-141 rotates at 90 knots and lifts off at a little over  100.  At that speed it can lift 160,000 lbs of it's own weight and almost  200,000 lbs of cargo. So 60,000 lbs of chain strength wasn't even close to  enough. 

  

 If the  wind direction is from the aircraft's front, the wings can generate an enormous  amount of lift, even in a Kitfox. Imagine how much lift could be generated with  60-70 MPH winds across the wings at the high angle of attack presented to the  wind when the tail is on the ground. 

  

 Might  take a LOT of stakes in the ground and some hefty rope!

  

 Clem  

 Lawton, OK

 KFIV-912

 [quote]   

   --

janderson412(at)hotmail.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:01 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Tape a 2x4 to the top of the wings...kill that lift..someone mentioned this some time back. ~j~



 [quote]   Here's something to think about. Consider how much lift our wings can produce. In a 40 mph wind the wings can easily generate 600 lbs of lift,  likely a lot more if the angle of attack is high, or the winds are higher. 

  

 I remember when I was a USAF C-141 pilot (4-engine jet transport).  At our base here in Oklahoma with storms coming with expected straight line winds of 85-90 mph, maintenance tied down each aircraft with six 10,000 lb strength tie-down chains, thinking that should do it.  The winds came and some of the aircraft snapped all the chains and got moved around the ramp. In retrospect, the C-141 rotates at 90 knots and lifts off at a little over 100.  At that speed it can lift 160,000 lbs of it's own weight and almost 200,000 lbs of cargo. So 60,000 lbs of chain strength wasn't even close to enough. 

  

 If the wind direction is from the aircraft's front, the wings can generate an enormous amount of lift, even in a Kitfox. Imagine how much lift could be generated with 60-70 MPH winds across the wings at the high angle of attack presented to the wind when the tail is on the ground. 

  

 Might take a LOT of stakes in the ground and some hefty rope!

  

 Clem 

 Lawton, OK

 KFIV-912

 [quote] 

 --

dave(at)cfisher.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Hey guys,



I did a little search for these items that are talked about and here they 

are.

http://www.airtimemfg.com/

The "Kit" (recommended) is $10 more ($90.00) (plus $5 shipping) (kits 

consist of the "set", plus three 5/16" high quality 8' ropes, and a storage 

bag



The Claw 

http://www.tagpilotsupply.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=940

$92.97

a.. Compact storage bag and contents weigh only 8 pounds

a.. These Airplane Tie Downs Anchor System includes: Bag that is easy to 

carry and store that contains: 3 Anchors; 9 spikes; 1 hammer; 20-ft rope



Now here is what some use on the grass strip here, these are very simular to 

the ones we buy at our local farm store for about 5$  each. 

http://www.karlkuemmerling.com/prod15.htm

That chart should holding power of up to 4000 lbs each.   I think if one was 

to use a lighter material llike Titanium or the 5052 alum  that might be an 

option ?   even a better option for us float flyers is too beach your plane 

and fill the floats with water.   



The screw in ones like for dogs etc I think just break off to easy although 

better than nothing. I would suggest that the end be welded so that it 

cannot stretch out the triangular handle. Plus i have seen them pull out of 

ground when it gets wet as they only sink in about a foot or so.



I think someone mentioned  the 2 x 4 on wing.  I have done that and that 

works well but you cannot always have 2x 4s in your fox unless you stap then 

on top of your floats   

Dave

---

noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:16 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

I think there is something here I'm missing.  With the kitfox why not just

fold the wings and wrap the plane in a light weight tarp??   Would be

cheaper for the field too.



Noel



[quote] --

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Kurt,



I always check the tent stakes at REI when I am there.  They are light 

weight, but usually only 8 or so inches long.  That has never satisfied me 

enough to try them.



Lowell



---

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:59 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Clem,



This is good insight.  It is my understanding that many Alaska pilots will 

tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly - essentially reducing lift.  I 

don't know how they anticipate the wind direction, though.



Lowell



---

dan(at)azshowersolutions.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:40 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Lowell,

  That's an interesting twist concerning the Alaska pilots. If that's true, I guess they are figuring it's easier to replace the empenage vs. the wings? Common sence to me says tie the thing down tight all the way around. This has been a good thread to establish things that may or may not work...personally I will take many of the suggestions and draw my own conclusions (as we all should), but to leave the tail flopping in the breeze???

  Dan

Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

  [quote]--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" 



Clem,



This is good insight. It is my understanding that many Alaska pilots will 

tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly - essentially reducing lift. I 

don't know how they anticipate the wind direction,  though.



Lowell



---

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Lots of good ideas and sources coming out!  



I don't have any for my plane yet, so I am interested

too.  My cargo straps double as tiedowns at airports

that have rings installed.  Haven't left it out at any

others yet to need my own stakes.  These straps are

not really sufficient for this anyway.  No load rating

on them.  Maybe 700-1000 lbs each.  Just what I have

for now.



I had a screw in type used for tying down mobile homes

years ago.  Used it for my german shepard.  He bent it

right over on a side pull.  These are only good for

straight pulls like the tree stakes from the farm

place.  Some require side pull (with nails) and others

require straight pull (screw in).



Some farm types are never meant to be removed - be

careful.



Seems you almost need 2 different sets to handle the

soil types, soft or hard.



I saw a ship in Adak Alaska break twenty 8" ropes in a

strong wind once.....  They had off loaded and were

high in the water.  Imagine the force required to

break even one 8" line.



Like the 141's mentioned, we can generate a good deal

of lift in normal storm winds.  An empty Fox might

lift off at 20-25 knots for you light builders. 

Especially the taildraggers.  Any wind above enough to

lift the weight is all against the ropes.  Don't have

my calculator here, but enough wind to give you 3 G's

in a turn would put 2 G's worth on the ropes.  That

could be 2-3000 lbs for us.



The wing wedges would help.  2x4's are hard to carry,

unless you use them when home.



I wonder if inflatable wedges tied to the wings every

2 feet would kill enough lift to make a good product?



If the wind is from the rear, your wing struts better

be stiff.  Some in the north use 2x4's to brace the

struts for snow/wind loads.



We CAP prop guys have to tie down the prop too. 

Anyone with a clutch that lets it free wheel has to.



Seat belts on the controls too?



Still listening.... So far I like the "airtime" ones

or some of your homebuilts better.



Kurt S.  S-5/NSI turbo



--- Dave <dave(at)cfisher.com> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Hey guys,

 

 I did a little search for these items that are

 talked about and here they are.

 http://www.airtimemfg.com/

 The "Kit" (recommended) is $10 more ($90.00) (plus

 $5 shipping) (kits 

 consist of the "set", plus three 5/16" high quality

 8' ropes, and a storage bag

 

 The Claw 



http://www.tagpilotsupply.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=940
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   $92.97

 a.. Compact storage bag and contents weigh only 8

 pounds

 a.. These Airplane Tie Downs Anchor System includes:

 Bag that is easy to 

 carry and store that contains: 3 Anchors; 9 spikes;

 1 hammer; 20-ft rope

 

 Now here is what some use on the grass strip here,

 these are very simular to 

 the ones we buy at our local farm store for about 5$

  each. 

 http://www.karlkuemmerling.com/prod15.htm

 That chart should holding power of up to 4000 lbs

 each.   I think if one was 

 to use a lighter material llike Titanium or the 5052

 alum  that might be an 

 option ?   even a better option for us float flyers

 is too beach your plane 

 and fill the floats with water.   

 

 The screw in ones like for dogs etc I think just

 break off to easy although 

 better than nothing. I would suggest that the end be

 welded so that it 

 cannot stretch out the triangular handle. Plus i

 have seen them pull out of 

 ground when it gets wet as they only sink in about a

 foot or so.

 

 I think someone mentioned  the 2 x 4 on wing.  I

 have done that and that 

 works well but you cannot always have 2x 4s in your

 fox unless you stap then 

 on top of your floats   



 Dave


	


__________________________________________________

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Thanks Lowell!  I thought maybe the bigger tents might

do, but never looked for that purpose.  Trying to save

a $ ya' know.  Doesn't help if you have to buy 20 of

them and a lot of rope....



Kurt S.



--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 

 	  Quote: 	
		   Kurt,

 

 I always check the tent stakes at REI when I am

 there.  They are light 

 weight, but usually only 8 or so inches long.  That

 has never satisfied me enough to try them.

 

 Lowell


	


__________________________________________________

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:59 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

I agree - good point.



And the wind can change 135 degrees with frontal

passage, so how do they know?



Oh, ask the eskimos.....   The dogs lay down.....



I'd put a long rope on the tail and not let it get

above level myself.  Then carry a replacement tail

spring???



ponder, ponder....  Still learning.



And ducking.  I am in Brazil.  5 minutes to the big

football game.  Horns.  Fireworks.  Everything shuts

down.  Everything!  BANG!  No sleep for night flyers.



Kurt S.



--- Lowell Fitt <lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Clem,

 

 This is good insight.  It is my understanding that

 many Alaska pilots will 

 tie down the wings and allow the tail to fly -

 essentially reducing lift.  I 

 don't know how they anticipate the wind direction,

 though.

 

 Lowell


	


__________________________________________________

rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:33 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Dan,  

That is not the way I read it.  David said, (I paste here) “3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "”   He doesn’t say how many planes on the field were using the “Claw”.  

   

I don’t believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.  

   

Randy  

     

.             

  

         

  

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley

 Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie down  

  

     

Randy,  

    

The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.  

    

Dan

 

 Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:  

   	  Quote: 	
		      

David,  (Or others),  

    

The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%.  

    

   

    

Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s design better.  

    

   

    

Sorry to be so late coming to this thread.  

    

   

    

Randy  

    

   

      

.             

  

    

   

        

    

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick

 Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: The "Claw" tie down  

  

    

   

      

On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

dan(at)azshowersolutions.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Randy,

  Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole field? I was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given. 

  Dan

   

   

  Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		                Dan,

  That is not the way I read it.  David said, (I paste here) “3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "”   He  doesn’t say how many planes on the field were using the “Claw”.

   

  I don’t believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.

   

  Randy

   

    .           



   

        

  From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie  down



   

    Randy,



    The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.



    Dan



Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:



   	  Quote: 	
		      David,  (Or others),



    The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%.



     



    Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s design better.



     



    Sorry to be so late coming to this thread.



     



    Randy



     



      .           

     



        

    From:  owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: The "Claw" tie down

     



      On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a  J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

morid(at)northland.lib.mi
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Randy's probably right.  However, the "Claw"  people make some pretty boastful claims about their product and I would think  that with that, none of them should have pulled out.  However, that aside,  my biggest balk on them is the weight.  Eight pounds is a lot of dead  weight to carry around when I'm usually trying to save ounces on other  things.

 Deke

  

 >From: Randy Daughenbaugh (rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com) 

  	  Quote: 	
		     Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:32    PM

   Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie    down

   



      

Dan,   

That is not the way I    read it.  David said, (I paste here) “3 of the 7 airplanes    that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "”   He doesn’t say    how many planes on the field were using the “Claw”.   

    

I don’t believe we yet have any    data on the failure rate.   

    

Randy   

       

.              

   

             

   

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com)    [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37    PM

To:    kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie    down

   

       

Randy,

      

The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7    planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in    reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The    nature of the ground plays a big part.

      

Dan



Randy Daughenbaugh    <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:

    	  Quote: 	
		            

David,  (Or      others),

          

The data point that      is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If      there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the      failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes      there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more      reasonable 3%.

          

 

          

Because the claw is      relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can      anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the claw,      based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s      design better.

          

 

          

Sorry to be so late      coming to this thread.

          

 

          

Randy

          

 

               

.                



          

 

                    

          

From:      owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com      [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David      McCormick

Sent: Sunday,      June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

To:      kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: The "Claw" tie      down



          

 

               

On Thursday at the Sentemental      Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe      thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down      on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with      the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the      other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my      Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie      downs.

runwayrex(at)juno.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Dan, 

  Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven planes were using the claw and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. There may have been hundreds using the claw, but three failed. There's a big difference here. 

Rex in Michigan 

-- Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> wrote:

 Randy,

 Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole field? I was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given. 

 Dan

  

  

 Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Dan,

 That is not the way I read it.  David said, (I paste here) “3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "”   He doesn’t say how many planes on the field were using the “Claw”.

  

 I don’t believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.

  

 Randy

  

  .           



  

    

 From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie down



  

  Randy,



  The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.



  Dan



Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		    David,  (Or others),



  The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%.



   



  Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s design better.



   



  Sorry to be so late coming to this thread.



   



  Randy



   



   .           

   



    

  From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: The "Claw" tie down

   



   On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

dan(at)azshowersolutions.
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

You are right...sorry Randy. Was looking at it sideways I suppose or misunderstood. Brain cramps...gotta love it. 

  Dan



Rexster <runwayrex(at)juno.com> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		    Dan,

    Randy is correct. You're indicating that ONLY seven planes were using the claw and 3 failed. That's not what the stats were. There may have been hundreds using the claw, but three failed. There's a big difference here.

  Rex in Michigan

  



-- Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com> wrote:



  Randy,

  Perhaps I'm not following what data you are looking for...the whole field? I was simply indicating from the sample of 7 planes we were given. 

  Dan

   

   

  Randy Daughenbaugh  <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:

   	  Quote: 	
		        Dan,

  That is not the way I read it.  David said, (I paste here) “3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw "”   He doesn’t say how many planes on the field were using the “Claw”.

   

  I don’t believe we yet have any data on the failure rate.

   

  Randy

   

    .           



   

        

  From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:37 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: The "Claw" tie down



   

    Randy,



    The first post of this thread indicated 3 out of 7 planes that were using the Claw failed. Significant in my book...however, in reading all of these posts one can get a flavor for what works...etc. The nature of the ground plays a big part.



    Dan



Randy Daughenbaugh <rjdaugh(at)rapidnet.com> wrote:



   	  Quote: 	
		      David,  (Or others),



    The data point that is missing here is how many planes were tied down with the Claw?  If there were three, the failure rate was 100%.  If there were 6 the failure rate drops to 50% - Still not good!  If over half the planes there were using the “Claw”, the failure rate drops to a much more reasonable 3%.



     



    Because the claw is relatively new, I suspect that not very many were using it.  Can anybody provide some insight here?  My  first impression of the claw, based on advertisements, was good.   But I think I like Lowell’s design better.



     



    Sorry to be so late coming to this thread.



     



    Randy



     



      .           

     



        

    From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David McCormick

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 12:17 PM

To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: The "Claw" tie down

     



      On Thursday at the Sentemental Journey Fly-In at LockHaven, Pennsylvania ( LHV ) we had a severe thunderstorm and at the time there were around 180 lite aircraft tied down on the airfield. 3 of the 7 airplanes that had damaged were tied down with the " Claw " One of the claw arms that was holding a J-3 Cub broke, and the other calw tiedowns came out of the ground. Mabee I was just lucky but my Kitfox was tied down with screw in type  tie downs.

lcfitt(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

I don't know about failure rates, but, the Claw I saw looked to have cast 

aluminum arms - although they may have been forged.  The documentation 

refers to it as aircraft grade aluminum.  I wouldn't trust any part of my 

airplane to a casting - engine excepted.  One broken arm is the red flag for 

me.  I pretty much wouldn't care how many Claws were out there, the fact 

that one broke definitely gives me pause.  Bend - OK,  Pulled out - maybe 

OK, but broke under a Cub ???  The whole idea of multiple spikes speaks to 

an attempt to attach the tiedown firmly to the ground.  In my mind that 

should be the weak point.  If the spikes stay in the ground, but the 

attachment to the airplane fails, the tiedown fails.  Someone mentioned the 

rope / strap and the need for strength there.



The ACS catalogue mentions a "life time guarantee".  It makes me wonder what 

that is all about.  Other sites refer to a "Limited life time warrantee". 

My guess is that the Cub owner and maybe others have contacted the Claw 

folks to see what the guarantee means.



It is interesting that the manufacturer claims a "combined" 3600 lb holding 

power, however Sporty's mentions it was tested to 480 lbs, individually. 

Sure makes me wonder?



Lowell





---

smokey_bear_40220(at)yaho
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

Maybe I missed it.  Did they just pull out, or did

they fail and break?  Soft earth or weak parts?



I agree with the weight problem and also it looks like

they take up a good bit of room.



Kurt S.



--- Fox5flyer <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Randy's probably right.  However, the "Claw" people

 make some pretty boastful claims about their product

 and I would think that with that, none of them

 should have pulled out.  However, that aside, my

 biggest balk on them is the weight.  Eight pounds is

 a lot of dead weight to carry around when I'm

 usually trying to save ounces on other things.

 Deke


	


__________________________________________________

asq1(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: The "Claw" tie down

The ones I saw just plucked a disc of dirt out of the wet,soft ground. 

Larry



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum