The most popular homebuilt or kit plane

[Anders]

I recently spent some time putting together a sort of profile on the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (http://disciplesofflight.com/cessna-172-skyhawk/), which tops the list of the most produced aircraft of all time. But as I was reading back through the list of the most produced aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft), I noticed that there aren't any homebuilt or kit planes on the list. Now, that list says you only need to have 5,000 aircraft of a certain type built to be added. I expect at least a few homebuilt/kit planes would make the list. But maybe they are limiting it to factory manufactured planes as well.

So, a couple of questions to the more knowledgeable folks on the EAA forums:

1 - What is the most popular / most produced homebuilt/kit plane?

2 - Is there a list somewhere, or some stats on what experimental aircraft are the most produced/popular?

[rv8bldr]

I suspect that the various models of Van's Aircraft RV series are the most popular and produced homebuilts (confession: I built and fly an RV-8).

From the Van's Aircraft website this morning:

As of January 6, 2015 8,923 RV aircraft have been completed and flown!



Listed by Model


RV-3
281


RV-4
1372


RV-6/6A
2540


RV-7/7A
1400


RV-8/8A
1277


RV-9/9A
947


RV-10
744


RV-12
361


RV-14/14A
1

[Floatsflyer]

In the absence of a list with verifiable numbers and no single Manufacturers Association to put them out, I'm submitting a subjective/objective list of most popular which might equate to most produced.

I agree that Vans is number 1 and when you add in number sold(not just completed/flown) is by far the runaway winner.

In no particular order:

Quickie
Long-Ez
Cozy
Flightstar
Kolb
Aircamper
Bowers
Quicksilver
Rans
Europa
Kitfox
Searey
Avid
Murphy
Quad City Challenger
Stoddard-Hamilton/Glasair
Zenith
Emeraude(France)
Wittman Tailwind
Beaver/Chinook
CGS Hawk
Volksplane
Fisher
Corben Aces
Mini-Max
Titan
Rotorway(Heli)

[ssmdive]

I think you are going to find the issue is the different types. As someone pointed out, Vans has a lot of aircraft flying. And your list needed 5K to be included...The RV6 is closest with ~2500. Quad City Challenger claims 4,000, but that includes many different models as well. So between all the various models of Vans and say Challengers, you are going to have a hard time getting to 5K. Then when you look at upgraded planes 'killing' off the older models. I mean how many people are going to build an RV4 when they can build the 8? How many people are going to build a 3 now?

[rv builder]

But that list doesn't count different models of 172 differently...from the original 172, through 172S, retract, turbo, etc. With the exception of the LSA RV, one could argue they should be counted together (or even two-seaters all together vs RV-3 and RV-10).

[rwanttaja]

I recently spent some time putting together a sort of profile on the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (http://disciplesofflight.com/cessna-172-skyhawk/), which tops the list of the most produced aircraft of all time. But as I was reading back through the list of the most produced aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft), I noticed that there aren't any homebuilt or kit planes on the list. Now, that list says you only need to have 5,000 aircraft of a certain type built to be added. I expect at least a few homebuilt/kit planes would make the list. But maybe they are limiting it to factory manufactured planes as well.

So, a couple of questions to the more knowledgeable folks on the EAA forums:

1 - What is the most popular / most produced homebuilt/kit plane?

2 - Is there a list somewhere, or some stats on what experimental aircraft are the most produced/popular?
Well, you're in luck. I just downloaded the most recent FAA registration database and ran it against my filters.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Clark]

Well, you're in luck. I just downloaded the most recent FAA registration database and ran it against my filters.

Ron Wanttaja

Very nicely done, thanks for the info.

[Anders]

Wow. Just, wow. Thank you all for the info. I suspected the Vans RVs would be up there, but wasn't aware just how popular they were. And rv builder has a point. That 172 count covers all the various models, 172A-S.

Also, thank you for the PDF regarding the homebuilt fleet size, Ron. That's awesome!

[Marc Zeitlin]

Well, you're in luck. I just downloaded the most recent FAA registration database and ran it against my filters.

Ron WanttajaRon - I didn't see "COZY"'s of any type listed - I know there are (as of the last time I checked) somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 registered COZY's (if not more). What happened to them?

[rwanttaja]

Ron - I didn't see "COZY"'s of any type listed - I know there are (as of the last time I checked) somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 registered COZY's (if not more). What happened to them?
Just didn't think of them. I used this for a filter:

Like "*Cozy*" Or Like "*Co-z*" Or Like "*Co z*" Or Like "*puffer*"

...and got 188 examples. To make up for skipping them, I've added a list of the registered aircraft.

I also found another 55 in the Deregistered Aircraft list.

Ron Wanttaja

[1600vw]

Ron great work like always. I expected nothing less. But the list is skewed so to speak.

What I mean, how many airplanes where built that never was registered. I know a man in my area who built a hand full of minmax's and only one was registered. He built these from scratch, did not buy kits so contacting the manufacturer to get numbers of kits sold would be a skewed number too. If you ask how many of the handful he built flew, they all flew. Are they flying today, I have no idea, but you get my point.

Tony

[ssmdive]

But that list doesn't count different models of 172 differently...from the original 172, through 172S, retract, turbo, etc. With the exception of the LSA RV, one could argue they should be counted together (or even two-seaters all together vs RV-3 and RV-10).

Well, its wikipedia. Add them.

[rwanttaja]

But that list doesn't count different models of 172 differently...
Here's the 2 January 2015 registrations of Cessna 172 models:

172: 2033
172A: 493
172B: 466
172C: 412
172D: 530
172E: 685
172F: 824
172G: 801
172H: 873
172I: 382
172K: 1154
172L: 937
172M: 3954
172N: 3520
172P: 1266
172Q : 16
172R: 744
172RG: 587
172S: 2012
P172D: 32
R172E: 107
R172G: 6
R172J: 1
R172K: 678

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Ron great work like always. I expected nothing less. But the list is skewed so to speak.

What I mean, how many airplanes where built that never was registered. I know a man in my area who built a hand full of minmax's and only one was registered. He built these from scratch, did not buy kits so contacting the manufacturer to get numbers of kits sold would be a skewed number too. If you ask how many of the handful he built flew, they all flew. Are they flying today, I have no idea, but you get my point.

It's a little-known fact that over four million Fly Babies were built, only a few of them bothering to "go legit" and get an N-Number. The rest skip Ground School, hang out on street corners comparing their scarf joints, and whistle at passing Pietenpols.

Seriously, though, the only thing we have to work with is the FAA Registration Database, which only includes registered, N-Numbered aircraft. When it comes down to the real light stuff like Mini-Maxes, Challengers, and Kolbs, there may be thousands being operated as ultralights. We just don't know, and there's no way OF knowing.

Another factor is the Make/Model used in the registration. The builder is the manufacturer; he or she can call the airplane anything they damn please. A builder's RV-6 could be registered as a "Throckmorton Air Chariot Model 6", and no filter I come up with will classify it as a Vans RV-6. Back in the day, some BD-4 builders registered their planes as "BEDE FOUR".

So the lists aren't perfect, but as these unusual names aren't that common, I expect my tally to be fairly close.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Point]

Ron,

Another design I didn't see on the list is the Breezy. While it likely won't crack the top 10, I've heard estimates of 100-200 that were built and flown. Heck, we had 13 at Oshkosh last year!

Would you mind running your search again with the terms "Breezy," "Unger," RLU," and see what comes up?

[Mayhemxpc]

The same is true for some production aircraft. Not all airplanes built to the C-172 type certificate will appear as C-172 on the FAA registry data base. T-41's being a case in point. I imagine the Rheims manufactured planes might be registered as R-172's and will not appear as C-172. (I am guessing on that one.) I do know it is true for Skymasters. For example, O-2's are registered as O-2A, M337B (the actual model number), and C-337. If you want to know how many military skymasters are still around you have to look at all three variations and then separate out the one's registered as C-337. (Serial numbers help there.) Some Piper Cubs are J-3's and some are L-4's. Those L-4s do not appear if you just look for J-3. For the C-47's and DC-3 you have to look at both lists (and under R4D, too!). I suspect that some C-47's are registered as DC-3s. Name variations becomes have greater effect for small run airplanes, like E-AB, where a significant number may be registered as something else. As Ron alludes, it is not likely that the difference would move any E-AB into the top ten GA aircraft list.

[rwanttaja]

Ron,

Another design I didn't see on the list is the Breezy. While it likely won't crack the top 10, I've heard estimates of 100-200 that were built and flown. Heck, we had 13 at Oshkosh last year!

Would you mind running your search again with the terms "Breezy," "Unger," RLU," and see what comes up?
101 total, with the "Lil Breezy" models eliminated (Rotax two-stroke power, obviously not the same thing).

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

The same is true for some production aircraft. Not all airplanes built to the C-172 type certificate will appear as C-172 on the FAA registry data base. T-41's being a case in point. I imagine the Rheims manufactured planes might be registered as R-172's and will not appear as C-172. (I am guessing on that one.)
Kinda interesting, really. The French-built aircraft are listed as "Reims" as the manufacture, but the model includes the Cessna name and designation.

N# | MFR Name | Model Name
4291P | REIMS |CESSNA F172H

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Warner]

I am surprised that none of the Wag-Aero Replicas showed up. Great job, Ron. Looks like the RV's are way out front, outnumbering many type certificated makes.

[Jeff Point]

101 Breezys, not too bad a showing.

I notice that the returns for the RV models are almost exactly 75% of the number of flights reported by Vans. While your numbers obviously don't take in oversees aircraft, I don't see 25% of the total fleet being outside the US. To what do you attribute the difference?

[rwanttaja]

101 Breezys, not too bad a showing.

I notice that the returns for the RV models are almost exactly 75% of the number of flights reported by Vans. While your numbers obviously don't take in oversees aircraft, I don't see 25% of the total fleet being outside the US. To what do you attribute the difference?

Far be it from me to dispute numbers provided by a company's marketing department. :-)

(Calm down, RVers, it's a joke).

There are about 800 RVs in the Deregistered Aircraft List that would not be included my original tally. My list also doesn't include 293 RV-12s that are NOT registered as Experimental Amateur-Built (not all are LSAs). There are 160+ Harmon Rockets, and since they start out as Vans kit sales, does Van's count them?

Otherwise, the filters I use to detect the aircraft may not be catching all of the aircraft. My typical filters for RVs is:

Like "*RV-6*" Or Like "*RV 6*" Or Like "*RV6*" Or Like "*VANS 6*"

For the last one, see N65ED and N80972.

There are undoubtedly registrations I'm missing, but think these'll cover the most common variants. But if someone calls their RV-6 a "Jones Special" there's no way to tell what kind of plane it actually is.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I am surprised that none of the Wag-Aero Replicas showed up.
Haven't developed the filters, yet, to search for the Wag-Aero stuff. It's sometimes tough to find the airplanes, but it's harder, sometimes, to eliminate the planes that AREN'T the types you're looking for.

I ran a quickie search (Like "*Wag-*" Or Like "*Wagaero*") and found 76 airplanes. Don't think it's all of them, but it's tough to search for Wag-Aero airplanes because of the wide variations in names. Of those, there are at least five variations of the spelling/abbreviation of "Sportsman." Really makes it tough to extract all the airplanes, and without a reliable set of filters, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say how many are out there.

Besides, someone will probably come back and tell me I only listed 75% of them. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Point]

Far be it from me to dispute numbers provided by a company's marketing department. :-)

(Calm down, RVers, it's a joke).

The joke is on you Ron- Van's Aircraft does not have a marketing department. If they did, their numbers would be three times as high!:rollseyes:

Thanks for all your work on this. Interesting stuff.

[rv8bldr]

101 Breezys, not too bad a showing.

I notice that the returns for the RV models are almost exactly 75% of the number of flights reported by Vans. While your numbers obviously don't take in oversees aircraft, I don't see 25% of the total fleet being outside the US. To what do you attribute the difference?

That might be true, Jeff, but there are an awful lot of them out here :-) Canada, the UK, Europe, South Africa, South America, and Australia all seem to have thriving RV communities (gangs...mafias?) On my small airfield alone (CYRP), there are at least nine.

[rwanttaja]

That might be true, Jeff, but there are an awful lot of them out here :-) Canada, the UK, Europe, South Africa, South America, and Australia all seem to have thriving RV communities (gangs...mafias?) On my small airfield alone (CYRP), there are at least nine.

Oddly enough, I happen to have a copy of the Canadian registry from 2009. There were 384 Van's aircraft registered there.

One more than there is in the whole state of Oregon, today... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[rv8bldr]

Oddly enough, I happen to have a copy of the Canadian registry from 2009. There were 384 Van's aircraft registered there.

One more than there is in the whole state of Oregon, today... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Interesting, Ron. I would have thought there would be more, given that the population of Canada is essentially 1/10th the size of the US population. I guess the 1:10 rule doesn't apply to RVs :-)

[rwanttaja]

Interesting, Ron. I would have thought there would be more, given that the population of Canada is essentially 1/10th the size of the US population. I guess the 1:10 rule doesn't apply to RVs :-)
I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

Remember, though, that all I had was a 2009 Canadian registry, and there are probably a lot more now. However, I would also think that Canada would have a greater need for utility-type aircraft, and thus the pure-sport types might be a little less prevalent. Probably a higher percentage of Murphy Rebels and Mooses up there.

Ron Wanttaja

[Hal Bryan]

I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

I get it, Ron! Though I have to confess that I got it because about 30 years ago I went to a concert and the opening act was a Canadian band called "54:40" and I looked it up then. In an encyclopedia. :)

[Floatsflyer]

I would have thought the rule was more, "54:40 or flight!" :-)

(if you get it, go to the head of the class)

Ron Wanttaja

Just to be clear and so there is no confusion, Ron's humorous remark of "54-40 or fight" is NOT a Canadian reference. It is in fact attributed to Polk in his run for president and he used it as an electioneering slogan regarding the Oregon territory/Canada border dispute. He never delivered on it as his resolution of the dispute was unsuccessful. Hence the 49th parallel for the past 170 years.

And BTW, rv8bldr's use of the 1:10 rule is quite valid and in wide use in determining many things related to Canada/US activities.

[rwanttaja]

Just to be clear and so there is no confusion, Ron's humorous remark of "54-40 or fight" is NOT a Canadian reference.
A Canadian reference, yes, a Canadian insult, no. Nothing derogatory was meant.

As for Polk et all, I'm hoping the Canadians've forgiven us by now. Though they've got some nice statues referencing kicking our [biblical beasts of burden] about 200 years ago.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

None ever taken...just like to keep the historical record straight.

[Floatsflyer]

In the absence of a list with verifiable numbers and no single Manufacturers Association to put them out...

Well, I stand corrected. I just found out there is an industry association- the Aircraft Kit Industry Association(AKIA), not to be confused with IKEA. It was formed in July, 2012 at Oshkosh. To date it has 26 US based members, 18 of which are kit manufacturers. They must perform their activities in a clandestine manner and/or not send out press releases to the general aviation press because I and those who contributed to this thread have never heard of them.

Their website does not contain any stats or direct contact info. The OP can likely contact one of the BOD's directly or thru EAA and ask if they will at some point begin to gather and publish stats like GAMA and LAMA.

http://www.akia.aero/

[raytoews]

Interesting information.
I did a quick search of the Canadian data base.

Amateur built 501
Advanced ultralight (like Light Spot) 500
Basic ultralight which must be registered in CDA 500
I included Owner maintenance(they are
homebuilts for all intents) 500

I suspect the data as they all came out at 500????

Van's showed 490 registered so the 500 of amateur built is suspect.

TC doesn't seem to have the same database info FAA does.


Ray Toews

[rwanttaja]

Interesting information.
I did a quick search of the Canadian data base.

Amateur built 501
Advanced ultralight (like Light Spot) 500
Basic ultralight which must be registered in CDA 500
I included Owner maintenance(they are
homebuilts for all intents) 500

I suspect the data as they all came out at 500????

Says right on the search page: "All searches are limited to 500 records."

http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ccarcs/aspscripts/en/advancedsearch.asp

In my 2009 Canadian database I see about 3900 "Amateur Built - CAR Standard 549" aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

[raytoews]

Says right on the search page: "All searches are limited to 500 records."

http://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ccarcs/aspscripts/en/advancedsearch.asp

In my 2009 Canadian database I see about 3900 "Amateur Built - CAR Standard 549" aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja


RTFS,,,,,eh,,,,,Ron.

[AndrewPowell]

Glad to read EAA forums members deep knowledge about aircraft. I am looking for more useful threads related aero stuff.

[lnuss]

Just to be clear and so there is no confusion, Ron's humorous remark of "54-40 or fight"
It might seem a little nit-picky, but Ron didn't say that: He actually said, "54:40 or flight!" - note the 'l'...

[AndrewPowell]

If anyone here is thinking about converting the engine to a LS series V8 then you can consider Robinson V-8 Aircraft. It will not only help you gain performance but also lower you’re operating costs.

[Bill Greenwood]

I looked up how many 172s built and it says almost 60,000, didnt know it was that many. It also says it will go 187 mph, not any Ive flown, Id have to put that in the category of "Alternate Facts".
Or maybe if being towed by a Mooney.

[choppergirl]

List of top most produced aircraft (click the Most Produced Aircraft drop down arrow to expand the table of aircraft):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft?wprov=sfla1


Quicksilver (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/lsasport/quicksilver-aircraft-ceases-production) looks erroneously missing from the list, probably because so many versions instead of one single model, but 13,000 Weedhoppers.

[Kyle Boatright]

I looked up how many 172s built and it says almost 60,000, didnt know it was that many. It also says it will go 187 mph.

I'm guessing that's VNE.

[Louis]

Interesting. I was surprised there weren't more Fly Baby's.