Homebuilt Fleet Sizes

[rwanttaja]

This table shows the number of particular homebuilt types that were registered as of 3 January 2017. The value is the fleet size at the end of the labeled year.

Type	Count
Air Command	58
Aventura	90
Avid	430
Baby/Junior Ace	284
Bede BD-4	102
Bede BD-5	68
Benson Gyro	323
Bowers Fly Baby	185
Challenger	1205
Christen Eagle	232
Glasair	709
GlaStar/Sportsman	480
Harmon Rocket	94
Hatz	128
Kitfox	1167
Kolb (Ex-AB)	235
Lancair (All Models)	1030
Lancair IV	317
Midget Mustang	279
Murphy	218
Pietenpol	391
Pitts (EX-AB)	638
Pulsar/KIS	154
Quickie/Q2/Q200	178
Quicksilver EX-AB	169
RAF-2000 Gyro	145
Rand KR-2	230
RANS	901
Rotorway	517
Rutan Long-EZ	487
Rutan Varieze	319
SeaRey	343
Sonerai	234
Sonex	596
Steen Skybolt	288
Stolp	459
Stolp Starduster	392
Thorp T-18	304
Vans RV-3	176
Vans RV-4	1072
Vans RV-6	1985
Vans RV-7	1325
Vans RV-8	1319
Vans RV-9	687
Vans RV-10	453
Vans RV-12 (EX-AB)	63
Velocity	291
Volksplane	130
Zenair EX-AB	1015

Ron Wanttaja

[Auburntsts]

I'm guessing you pulled this data from the FAA registry by make which will exclude non-standard registrations (e.g. Van's RV-7 vs. Bob Smith Special 7)? I ask because the Van's numbers, and most likely other makes are low-- I estimate by possibly as much as 20%. For example, your data shows only 453 RV-10s while Vans site shows 819 self reported first flights--that's a pretty big discrepancy.

[gbrasch]

Interesting, to add to Todd's comment, here are the numbers from Van's site:

As of January 6, 2017 9,582 RV aircraft have been completed and flown!

Listed by Model
RV-3	295
RV-4	1,401
RV-6/6A	2,597
RV-7/7A	1,553
RV-8/8A	1,373
RV-9/9A	1,035
RV-10	819
RV-12	490
RV-14/14A	19

[rwanttaja]

I'm guessing you pulled this data from the FAA registry by make which will exclude non-standard registrations (e.g. Van's RV-7 vs. Bob Smith Special 7)? I ask because the Van's numbers, and most likely other makes are low-- I estimate by possibly as much as 20%. For example, your data shows only 453 RV-10s while Vans site shows 819 self reported first flights--that's a pretty big discrepancy.

I try to find non-standard registrations as much as I can... for the RV-10, for instance, I use:

Like "*RV-10*" Or Like "*RV 10*" Or Like "*RV10*" Or Like "*VANS 10*" It certainly doesn't catch the "Joes Ten" registrations, but its unknown how often those sorts of variations are made.

If anyone has an N-Number list, I'd be happy to run them against the master list to hopefully improve my type filters.

Also, I suspect Vans' list includes:
- Foreign-registered RVs, and
- US RVs that have been deregistered

...which mine doesn't. There are, for instance, about 350 RV-6s that have been removed from the registry. These will include both destroyed/abandoned aircraft as well as those exported to other countries. 22 RV-10s are listed on the deregistered list, of which 15 have been exported.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Also, for the RV-12, I list ONLY those registered as Experimental Amateur-Built. My database shows 523 RV-12s of all certifications.

Ron Wanttaja

[Auburntsts]

I try to find non-standard registrations as much as I can... for the RV-10, for instance, I use:

Like "*RV-10*" Or Like "*RV 10*" Or Like "*RV10*" Or Like "*VANS 10*" It certainly doesn't catch the "Joes Ten" registrations, but its unknown how often those sorts of variations are made.

If anyone has an N-Number list, I'd be happy to run them against the master list to hopefully improve my type filters.

Also, I suspect Vans' list includes:
- Foreign-registered RVs, and
- US RVs that have been deregistered

...which mine doesn't. There are, for instance, about 350 RV-6s that have been removed from the registry. These will include both destroyed/abandoned aircraft as well as those exported to other countries. 22 RV-10s are listed on the deregistered list, of which 15 have been exported.

Ron Wanttaja

Dang, how could I miss the obvious about the foreign builds? Of course you are correct and that explains the discrepancy.

[1600vw]

I don't see one Fisher Airplane. I know of three that are registered and flying today. I own one. I am sure there are a lot more then the three I know about. Maybe Fisher was left out for a reason that I do not know about.

[rwanttaja]

I don't see one Fisher Airplane. I know of three that are registered and flying today. I own one. I am sure there are a lot more then the three I know about. Maybe Fisher was left out for a reason that I do not know about.

All aircraft types are extracted using a filter process that has to be set up manually. They do not automatically "pop out." If an aircraft type is not shown, it's because I haven't set up the appropriate filters for it.

Best I can do with my Fisher filters is 149 total aircraft. Of those, 96 are definitely Experimental Amateur-Built, 34 have ambiguous certification (none listed in the FAA registration entry), and 17 are Experimental Light Sport (which wouldn't be included in my EAB list).

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

All aircraft types are extracted using a filter process that has to be set up manually. They do not automatically "pop out." If an aircraft type is not shown, it's because I haven't set up the appropriate filters for it.

Best I can do with my Fisher filters is 149 total aircraft. Of those, 96 are definitely Experimental Amateur-Built, 34 have ambiguous certification (none listed in the FAA registration entry), and 17 are Experimental Light Sport (which wouldn't be included in my EAB list).

Ron Wanttaja

That's interesting. I was under the impression that a Light Sport certificate was for E-LSA airplanes, for which none of the Fishers would qualify. They can be Experimental, and they can meet Light Sport Aircraft limits, but they can't be registered as E-LSA. Unless you get a DAR who makes a mistake, and apparently those just never get corrected. I think there has been a fair amount of confusion and inconsistency around the Light Sport rules. For example, I own an RV-12 that was built and is registered as E-LSA... but the manufacturer is listed as the builder, not Van's as should be listed.

I can see why it's such a challenge to produce anything more than general results, or comarative year by year results from that database. There is very little consistency and almost no absolutes thay apply across the board.

[rwanttaja]

That's interesting. I was under the impression that a Light Sport certificate was for E-LSA airplanes, for which none of the Fishers would qualify. They can be Experimental, and they can meet Light Sport Aircraft limits, but they can't be registered as E-LSA. Unless you get a DAR who makes a mistake, and apparently those just never get corrected. I think there has been a fair amount of confusion and inconsistency around the Light Sport rules. For example, I own an RV-12 that was built and is registered as E-LSA.

You're absolutely correct...the way the rules are now. An airplane can be registered as Experimental Light Sport only if the kit maker goes through the process to get approval of an example of the aircraft under the Consensus standards

However, when the Light Sport process was implemented, there was a transition process. For instance, they allowed non-Part 103 compliant aircraft register as Experimental Light Sport without requiring showing compliance with ASTM standards.

At the same time, they allowed ANY homebuilt aircraft, not yet certified, to be licensed as Experimental Light Sport aircraft if it met the Part 1 definition. A number of homebuilders took advantage of the window (IIRC, it was about 18 months long) and licensed traditional homebuilts as ELSA. I was actually contemplating buying a Fly Baby project at the time, to license it as ELSA.

I strongly suspect that most, if not all, of those Fishers fell under that category. I don't have access to my database at the moment, but I believe all the Fisher LSAs I saw were the transition certification category. It's either 48A or 48B (48C is for aircraft transitioned from SLSA to ELSA).

Ron Wanttaja