Obtaining Title for Data Plates

[rwanttaja]

So then how is it that the Navy says the sailing ship in Boston harbor is THE U.S.S. Constitution? I think every piece from stem to stern has been replaced over 200+ years except for the name plate and the bell. Is it the bell that makes the difference? (Maybe? Since that represents at least one original part?)

For that matter, probably none of your body cells are original to your birth. Who are you, and what have you done with Chris?

It's actually not a bad analogy. The Constitution was launched in 1797. Since then wood has been replaced, iron has been replaced, wetware has been replaced. But it has had the continual identity as the United States Ship Constitution over all that time.

They didn't just stroll out to the dock, jack up the bell, and slide an entirely new ship underneath*. Which was, basically, the original line of thought about the aircraft data plate.

Ron "Helm's alee!" Wanttaja

* Note that this is was what was done with the Constitution's contemporary, USS Constellation. There are still arguments as to whether the Constellation on display in Baltimore was launched in 1797 or 1853.

[Frank Giger]

Now this is interesting, as the data plate is the aircraft, and the words "restore" and "replace" can be murky. As Ron noted, the arbiter is the FAA.

One could, in fact, build the ship and slide it under the bell and plate, providing two things:

1) One built it EXACTLY as it was originally.
2) Uncle Sam smiled on one's efforts.

In mind is WWI aircraft, which are mostly bits of fittings, wheels, some engines, and the data plate at a this point. I know of a couple aircraft that were built with a surprising amount of original hardware (less wood and fabric), including engines with providence. At some point the line gets blurry, and one could argue that the plane is restored around the data plate and not the other way around.

Other than having bragging rights on owning and flying Pilot X's plane that flew over Verdun, I don't know why one would bother with all the fuss, though. Maybe a ribbon from an airshow?

Plus it wouldn't be an Experimental, but Certified. We have a guy restoring a Champ, and at this point he's basically built it from scratch, as it was much more of a basket case than he thought. But we're all big weirdos when it comes to airplanes.

Frank "Except for the spars, ribs, braces on the wings, longerons and stringers on the fuselage, gear, controls, panel, and engine, it's all original" Giger

[wyoranch]

I have always wondered that fact. When does an airplane stop being an airplane. Meaning, at what point does a basket case become unrestorable ( and I am not talking about the financial part because there is always someone with deep enough pockets). I have seen piles of corroded aluminum going in for restoration. Perhaps 5% of the airplane will be used, the rest is just templates for new pieces. That to me is a NEW airplane and has nothing to do with the plane that rolled off the assembly line. They are multi-million dollar homebuilts. So where is that line that says the OP can't hand build a B-17 and slap on the data plate.
Rick "on a lot of things I am completely stupid" H
(Signature copyright royalty payment sent to Ron)

[martymayes]

That to me is a NEW airplane and has nothing to do with the plane that rolled off the assembly line. They are multi-million dollar homebuilts. So where is that line that says the OP can't hand build a B-17 and slap on the data plate.

There is nothing that says he can't do that. The data plate will say "experimental amateur-built" and that is the rub. He doesn't want an E/A-B airplane. He wants a genuine Boeing airplane. Can't put a Boeing data plate on a replica.

I can build a C-172 in my backyard. What I can't do is go to the junk yard find a 172 data plate and slap it on my creation. Even if it is exact reproduction n every respect.

[wyoranch]

But how does it work for say a warbird recovered from some swamp somewhere when 95% of the plane is made in a shop?
Thanks to everyone for their patience
Rick

[CHICAGORANDY]

I will presume that the difference is that the restorers still have all the swamp plane that they recovered and ARE using as much of the original as they can salvage in that restoration?

[martymayes]

But how does it work for say a warbird recovered from some swamp somewhere when 95% of the plane is made in a shop?
Thanks to everyone for their patience
Rick

The recovered plane can be restored/repaired as needed and returned to service. There are nuances in the regulatory process that makes one method permissible and the other illegal.

[Dana]

There is a long history of "data plate restorations" where one jacks up the data plate and slides a new plane underneath it. What is absolutely necessary, however, is not just the data plate but a documented chain of ownership (bill(s) of sale, etc.) from the last registered owner of the aircraft, whether a civilian or the government. So according to the paperwork you bought the actual airplane though there may be some parts (perhaps everything but the data plate) missing.

In the case of an abandoned wreck that was government owned when it crashed, I don't know how it works. Obviously it can be done, as in the case of the guys who have recovered bombers from glaciers.

In the case of warbirds, while some are eligible for standard category airworthiness certificates, others aren't, and a new reproduction registered as experimental-amateur built or exhibition may well be less restrictive. But regardless, the price tag for such a project includes many zeros.