Hi Paul, i will find you the tests showing 2 Claws failed in the centre
bracket with just 150 pounds shock loads (it was done in a South African
magazine). They may be YOUR favourite but they are brittle and having
sold them before we have a few reports on low wing aircraft of holes in
the wings from the hammer (Obviously NOT the claws fault). Glad there
are choices out there for the public that way you can buy what suits
your needs, remembering these are NOT a replacement for a cable or
underground concrete block. Cheers

sisu1a wrote:
On Sep 23, 4:16 am, user wrote:
Tryhttp://www.screwits.com Small, light and they work !

The site has a comparison of all the tie downs available

Hmmm, that's some comparison! Glad they definitively settled that one.
According to their ultra scientific study (based on the risk of
accidentally striking your wing while installing...) they have
positively determined once and for all that their own system THEY sell
is indeed actually "The Ultimate Aircraft Tiedown System". Good thing
their team of crack scientists conducted such a thorough test of the
parameters that really matter to pilots...

Seriously, I wish I could find the photos Sporty's took of a large
backhoe fitted with a tensiometer actually testing all the major
available tiedowns to failure under the same conditions. The screw
type and hockey puck thingies that (cheap) pilots are trying
desperately to convince themselves can outperform the Claw (some of
which are just as expensive), failed miserably LONG before the Claw
anchors pulled out. Again, the Claw is substitute for permanent
anchors, however there simply is not a portable solution that
outperforms them for most situations (and by portable I mean no sledge
hammers, no pipe wrenches, no parts longer than a foot, 10lbs, ie
something you would actually carry in your ship) BTW, although they
have spikes, that is the only system that does not rely on friction in
the Z axis-hence the 10" long spikes. The forces are directed inwards
at ~45deg in an equidistant triangle that is gripping the earth
between the spikes. The harder you pull the harder they grab (until
failure of course). The only situation they suck in is in loose gravel/
sand, and that's where the dittybag deal really shines.

Actually I like when guys buy those screw types, as it is actually
quite entertaining to watch people STRUGGLE to get them in
(unfortunately they plane does not have to struggle much to pull them
back out). The Claw gos in incredibly easy and hold far more then the
competition. It's your plane though, so buy whatever you want. If your
plane is parked next to mine though, don't be offended if you awake
and see a Claw anchor or 2 added to your setup that almost let go in
the middle of the night (happened several times already...). It's also
nice not to have tripping hazards extending beyond the wing, not to
mention having nothing to impale your wing/tire protruding above the
ground, but to each their own.

I think that one should carry both the Claw AND the dittybag system
that Bill pioneered for a truly comprehensive and portable X/C set.
That way your bases are covered whether you land on very loose or very
hard ground, and one could use BOTH if really in trouble. (The Claw
goes in fast enough to secure it in the wind, which would buy the time
needed to fill the dittys)

BTW, getting back to the OP, I for one am not a big fan of cam straps.
The camstraps I have used in the past for securing loads on the road
required re-cinching all too often (all brands I tried...). I stick w/
the ratchet types if using straps, but for going light/portable I have
a little bit of 8mm spectra that fits the bill quite nicely. I trust
my knots FAR more than cam buckles, but maybe I am just biased on that
one. I don't like S-hooks either though, so I cut those off my straps
and replace them w/stainless screw type D-shackles.

-Paul