Obtaining Title for Data Plates

[Eli Josephs]

Hello everyone,

I was just offered a B-17 manufacturers data plate which has a history on the civil registry. I'd like to use it to build off of, but I'll need a title to do so. The airframe was scrapped 50 years ago, but the data plate was illegally removed during the early 50s when the aircraft was sitting as a display. Because it was removed illegally, there is no chain of title.

The current owner suggested that I attempt to get a new title. I'd like to know if this is possible, and what I will need to do in order to get it.

I would guess that this happens often with fighters, such as the P-51, so I'm hoping someone will have some experience here.

Thanks.

-Eli Josephs
Fort Collins B-17

[martymayes]

Does the paper trail end with the plane being reported as "Destroyed" ??

[Eli Josephs]

Does the paper trail end with the plane being reported as "Destroyed" ??

I beleive so, yes.

[rwanttaja]

I was just offered a B-17 manufacturers data plate which has a history on the civil registry. I'd like to use it to build off of, but I'll need a title to do so.

Am I reading this right? You're going to build a B-17 to go with the data plate?

I'm guessing you have several airframes and need a single entity to assemble the airplane.

Ron "And can I come watch?" Wanttaja

[martymayes]

I beleive so, yes.

The last registered owner would have to transfer title with an aircraft bill of sale, FAA Form 8050-2.

Looking at your info, I think what you plan to do is build an exact replica of a B-17G from scratch (using original drawings) and attach the dataplate from a different aircraft on the replica?

Good luck. That will be a tough sell to get the FAA on board.

[Eli Josephs]

Actually the aircraft might not be destroyed. Here is the last sheet I have: http://i63.tinypic.com/641aud.jpg

It occurred to me that the other plate and some parts might be for sale by someone else, who I'll have to check with, but for now let's assume this plate is still the only surviving part. Either way, Aero Service Corp is long out of business.

As far as getting the FAA onboard, why should it be a bigger issue than building a data plate P-51? I have all the drawings, and if it passes airworthiness why should it be an issue?

EDIT: The person who might have had parts for this same aircraft recently sold his business, and the new owners won't be available until April 2018. I don't have a contact number either. I am, of course, talking of Jay Wisler at http://www.warbird-parts.com . If memory serves right he had a plate, paperwork, and parts for a 17 that was on the civil registry. I can't remember the serial or registration though.

Thanks,

EJ

[rwanttaja]

You're in luck, in one way at least...looks like N5845N was deregistered in October of 1959, but the N-number has not yet been reassigned.

Ron Wanttaja

[Eli Josephs]

I doubt that Jay has this aircraft.

So, here's where I stand: I can't get a chain of title (previous owners are out of business, likely passed away). I'm not sure if the aircraft is officially listed as destroyed or not, because it supposedly crashed in Saudi Arabia (1959). With that as it is, is it possible to get a new title and re-register the N number?

[Bill Berson]

Airplanes don't have titles, they have registrations, slightly different. I think you need a complete chain of bill of sales to get a current registration in your name.
A simple data plate has no value, as far as I know. I had some Aeronca data plates and threw them away.

[martymayes]

As far as getting the FAA onboard, why should it be a bigger issue than building a data pliate P-51? I have all the drawings, and if it passes airworthiness why should it be an issue?

Go to para 4....

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC43-17.pdf


I know what was done in the past and some of the stories are further embellished with each passing yr. but today what you suggest is simply not going to fly with the feds. You can’t manufacture a plane and install a data plate from another plane - legally anyway. Now, if you have a B17 with a data plate, you can repair that plane and it’s good to go.

[martymayes]

You can certainly reserve the N number with the FAA registry.

[Eli Josephs]

Go to para 4....

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC43-17.pdf


I know what was done in the past and some of the stories are further embellished with each passing yr. but today what you suggest is simply not going to fly with the feds. You can’t manufacture a plane and install a data plate from another plane - legally anyway. Now, if you have a B17 with a data plate, you can repair that plane and it’s good to go.

I don't have any parts of an airframe. All parts would be brand new, and specific to the data plate. That FAA advisory seems to be implying that I have an airframe, or part of one, and want to slap a data plate onto it, whereas my actual goal is near the opposite.

In this case, serial 42-102542 (tel:42-102542) which is a late B-17G-50-BO. The Boeing drawings would make an identical copy, specific to the serial number 42-102542 (tel:42-102542). The only difference would be the atoms themself, in this case I would want to upgrade 2024 aluminum to a higher grade which is stronger and deteriorates slower, probably 6061.

EDIT: I have done 3-D CAD work based off of 43-38083 (tel:43-38083), and done work for "Desert Rat," but I have not and will not make any physical parts until I have a plate and it is registered, at which point I will rework my model to the correct serial number.

[Eli Josephs]

Airplanes don't have titles, they have registrations, slightly different. I think you need a complete chain of bill of sales to get a current registration in your name.
A simple data plate has no value, as far as I know. I had some Aeronca data plates and threw them away.

Thanks Bill. Is there any chance you know where I could find a regulation talking about this?

[Bill Berson]

Thanks Bill. Is there any chance you know where I could find a regulation talking about this?
I don't know the regulation. But this is what you need: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/register_aircraft/

Without a bill of sale, no way to get it registered.
Even if you could prove ownership, do you have any logbook records to get a duplicate Airworthiness Certificate?

[Eli Josephs]

I don't know the regulation. But this is what you need: https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/register_aircraft/

Without a bill of sale, no way to get it registered.
Even if you could prove ownership, do you have any logbook records to get a duplicate Airworthiness Certificate?

No logbook records that I know of, but I'd expect there to be records from the military about its service (flight hours, maintenance, etc). Not sure if that counts...

As as far as bill of sale, I can get one from the current owner recording OUR transaction, but nothing before. It's not clear about how far back it needs to go, just from my scanning of the info and looking through the enclosed bill of sale link.

[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.

[Bill Berson]

No logbook records that I know of, but I'd expect there to be records from the military about its service (flight hours, maintenance, etc). Not sure if that counts...

As as far as bill of sale, I can get one from the current owner recording OUR transaction, but nothing before. It's not clear about how far back it needs to go, just from my scanning of the info and looking through the enclosed bill of sale link.
A bill of sale from the current owner or owners might work for you. I recommend a title search, to make sure of current owner. (They call it title search but isn't really a title)

The Bally 1/3 B-17 was experimental amateur built.
You could build a full scale B-17 using EA-B rules. In that case a new data plate would be created with your name as manufacturer. And you can change it to 6061 if you want. But 6061 is not as strong as 2024.

[Eli Josephs]

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.

I am aware, but it is not helpful.


A bill of sale from the current owner or owners might work for you. I recommend a title search, to make sure of current owner. (They call it title search but isn't really a title)

The Bally 1/3 B-17 was experimental amateur built.
You could build a full scale B-17 using EA-B rules. In that case a new data plate would be created with your name as manufacturer. And you can change it to 6061 if you want. But 6061 is not as strong as 2024.

I'll do a title search when I have a little more time. I will ask the seller if he can obtain a bill of sale for when he obtained the plate. I'm considering getting info directly from the FAA for details, but I'm not sure who I should contact. Do you have any suggestions?

I know that I could go amateur built, but that would have certain restrictions to its use, thus fewer people would have an interest in helping the project along.

I am probably thinking of the wrong aluminum alloy...

[Bill Berson]

I always called one of the Oklahoma City based private aircraft title companies that advertised in Trade-a-Plane

[rwanttaja]

I would talk to your local FSDO before cutting metal...for that matter, before buying the metal. Our opinion doesn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter, it's all up to the FAA guys. As has been mentioned, what you apparently plan to do is contrary the FAA policy, as reflected in the Advisory Circular. Now, ACs are NOT regulations... but they indicate what should be approvable.

Ron Wanttaja

[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 (http://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/ships/uss-constitution-americas-ship-of-state.html), 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."

[martymayes]

I am aware, but it is not helpful.



I'll do a title search when I have a little more time. I will ask the seller if he can obtain a bill of sale for when he obtained the plate. I'm considering getting info directly from the FAA for details, but I'm not sure who I should contact. Do you have any suggestions?

I know that I could go amateur built, but that would have certain restrictions to its use, thus fewer people would have an interest in helping the project along.



You can call your local FSDO and ask to speak to the ASI (Airworthiness Safety inspector) on duty. You can also ask about buying and selling data plates not attached to aircraft. It’s illegal.

Only the B17G TC holder can build a new B17G. Last I heard Transcontinental and Western held the LTC for a B17G

[Eli Josephs]

Thanks for everyone's help!

The short answer is "no," it can not be used. I could maybe get around the "changing data plate" regulations, but TC and the fact that it is all new means it just won't work.

For a while, I've been entertaining the idea of recovering a wreck, and restoring it. I'll be making another forum post about this while I'm still thinking about potential starting points for this project.

[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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(1797)). 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.

[rwanttaja]

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.
Out of curiosity, are there any true combat airplanes from WWII that had Standard Airworthiness? I don't mean variants of the C-45 that dropped training bombs on Kansas, or SNJs equipped for gunnery training.

Don't believe any of the traditional fighters or bombers did, but some of the patrol aircraft like the Catalina or Hudson might.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

I think a Standard Airworthiness certificate is more important than data plate. Looks like most are perhaps Limited Airworthiness cerficate. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_26.html

Or get a DC-4 or DC-6 and fit a new custom B-17 shaped fuselage?

[Dana]

Out of curiosity, are there any true combat airplanes from WWII that had Standard Airworthiness? I don't mean variants of the C-45 that dropped training bombs on Kansas, or SNJs equipped for gunnery training.

Don't believe any of the traditional fighters or bombers did, but some of the patrol aircraft like the Catalina or Hudson might.


There's at least one P-51 on the FAA registry with a standard AWC. I don't think any B-17s do, but some manufacturers tried to sell bombers as cargo planes after the war, possible some received standard certificates.

[wyoranch]

Dana,
so the issue is NOT that the OP has a data plate with no airplane attached, it is the lack of paperwork attached to the data plate ? So if he had the paper trail on the plate, he could ( and I love this saying...... ) jack the data plate up and slide another airplane underneath ( and yes I understand it is not that simple...) ? Thanks for your patience.
Rick

[Dana]

Dana,
so the issue is NOT that the OP has a data plate with no airplane attached, it is the lack of paperwork attached to the data plate ? So if he had the paper trail on the plate, he could ( and I love this saying...... ) jack the data plate up and slide another airplane underneath ( and yes I understand it is not that simple...) ? Thanks for your patience.
Rick

Pretty much, yes. Replacing everything but the data plate is an extreme stretch of the rules, but it does happen. I don't know what the logbook entries look like in such a situation.

More often it's not everything, at least at the same time, like grandpa's axe. I once owned a 1941 Taylorcraft, I figured about the only original major parts were the engine, instrument panel (but not all the instruments) and the left landing gear. The fuselage had been replaced at one point with a new factory fuselage, at another point the wings with a set of "good used wings", etc.

[martymayes]

AC 45-2D has more on data plates:

i. Acquiring an Identification Plate from Somewhere Other Than the Manufacturer.
(1) You are required to have the FAA’s approval to remove, change information on, or
install an identification plate for other than maintenance.
(2) You are required not to use an identification plate from a scrapped or destroyed
aircraft or aircraft engine.
(3) You are required to buy identification plates from an approved source after going
through the process described in paragraph 6g.
(4) If you install an identification plate without the FAA’s approval, you are in violation
of § 45.13(b), (c), and/or (e)

Again, unless I'm missing something, it looks to me like a person that obtains a data plate from other than an approved source (ebay, Barnstormers, the guy wearing a trench coat who opens coat up and inside is lined with data plates- "data plates, data plates, get your data plates here - I've got B-1 through B-29. B-707 through B747, Lunar Shuttle - you name it I can get it"), or from a scrapped or destroyed airplane and bolts it on a plane without FAA approval has violated the regs. Obtaining a random data plate, hanging it in the shop by a string and building a plane around it is not legal. Same is true of driving a plane different from which data plate was removed underneath and attaching said data plate - obviously one is simply swapping data plate from one plane to another. Might be nice to talk about but probably hard to find someone with a certificate on the line that will sign off on illegal activity. Also, why would someone spend a lot of $$$$ (possibly millions on a warbird) and risk having the FAA ground the plane? Doesn't make sense. Sure bet a mechanic who gets busted will spill the beans on the aircraft in question.

Of course it is possible, especially in helicopter world (where nearly every part is life limited), that over time an aircraft could evolve to where not an original part remains through routine maintenance and parts replacement. The history of how that occurred would be in the records. It is possible to have a plane destroyed for whatever reason where the owner gets FAA approval to remove data plate (obviously this is outside the scope of maintenance), rebuild plane (even 100% if required) and re-install same data plate on his "new" plane. As long as the FAA gives the blessing, all is good.



Edit: The current version of this AC is 45-2E available for viewing here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_45-2E.pdf