Obtaining Title for Data Plates

[CHICAGORANDY]

I know of nothing (other than needing two or three dump-trucks full of $100 bills) that would prevent someone from building an experimental B-17 aircraft clone and applying an unused "N" number? Mr Bally did just that with his 1/3 scale B-17 rendition.

Beyond that this reminds me of the tale of a fellow who boasted about owning the same working axe in his family for 250 years, he only replaced the handle twenty-eight times and the head five. You have a souvenir B-17 data plate, nothing more. AFAIK data plates do not an airplane make. But SINCERE kudos on having those filled dump trucks.

[Mayhemxpc]

Beyond that this reminds me of the tale of a fellow who boasted about owning the same working axe in his family for 250 years, he only replaced the handle twenty-eight times and the head five. You have a souvenir B-17 data plate, nothing more. AFAIK data plates do not an airplane make. But SINCERE kudos on having those filled dump trucks.

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?)

[CHICAGORANDY]

I am not educated on the requirements for percentage of original parts required to call something the 'original' something. My gut emotional response has me thinking it would be more than a nameplate or in the case of a ship a single bell. Otherwise it 'would' be just like that farmer's axe.

In the specific case of the one ship mentioned?

"Naval History and Heritage Command Detachment Boston, the unit charged with overseeing Constitution’s maintenance and repair, estimates that 10 to 15 percent of the ship’s fabric is composed of timber installed between 1795 and 1797. This “original” wood includes the ship’s keel, lower futtocks, and the deadwood at the stem and stern."

If there were at least 10% of a specific airplane on hand and the rest needed to be new materials? I reckon that qualifies too? Again, there's NOTHING wrong with creating a new construction 'clone' of something either, you just wouldn't call it the 'original' thing. The EAA has a dandy 'replica' of the Spirit of St Louis, great to examine, take pics of and watch fly. They don't claim that it IS the Spirit though.

[Bill Berson]

Like Marty said, FAR 45.13 seems rather clear about switching data plates:

"(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, no person may remove, change, or place identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section, on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub, without the approval of the Administrator.(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may remove or install any identification plate required by §45.11 of this part, without the approval of the Administrator.
(d) Persons performing work under the provisions of Part 43 of this chapter may, in accordance with methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator—
(1) Remove, change, or place the identification information required by paragraph (a) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub; or
(2) Remove an identification plate required by §45.11 when necessary during maintenance operations.
(e) No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed."

[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