Homebuilt Fleet Sizes - 2017

[rwanttaja]

Every new year, I download the FAA registration database and extract the number of homebuilt aircraft.

First: Total aircraft on the FAA registry:


Year

All Aircraft

Net Increase

Total Deregistered

New Aircraft



EAB

Net EAB Increase

EAB Deregistered

New EAB Aircraft


2009

374373

-1751

7018

5267

|

31914

672

464

1136


2010

373896

-477

5422

4945

|

32682

768

309

1077


2011

367857

-6039

11224

5185

|

33038

356

666

1022


2012

352198

-15659

20985

5326

|

32041

-997

1951

954


2013

317993

-34205

40188

5983

|

27946

-4095

5013

918


2014

312586

-5407

12588

7181

|

27909

-37

1084

1047


2015

314404

1818

8240

10058

|

28078

169

781

950


2016

320683

6279

4254

10533

|

28830

752

225

977


2017

312344

-8339

14961

6622

|

28451

-379

1296

917



The total number of registered homebuilts dropped by 379 last year, and this was due to an increased number of aircraft deregistered by the FAA. You'll see the same effect in the "All Aircraft" columns. Not sure what happened last year, but it may be due to owners deciding not to maintain the listings of inactive/no-long-existing aircraft. As you can see, the "All Aircraft" section shows the same impact...a big jump in deregistrations.

There were about 1020 new homebuilt N-Numbers last year, but roughly 100 were re-numbered existing aircraft. By my analysis, 917 brand-new homebuilts were added to the fleet last year. This is slightly less than average.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kyle Boatright]

I can't imagine that half of the Harmon Rockets fell off in a year...

[martymayes]

Look at the Bensen gyros that have disappeared! Amazing how popular they once were but now just think how many are wasting away in the dark dusty corner of a garage!

[rwanttaja]

I can't imagine that half of the Harmon Rockets fell off in a year...

You're right, and as I look at the data, I see some other discrepancies. I'm going to re-run the previous year's data to get clarification. I've deleted the message, and will re-post in a day or so.

My guess is different assumptions were used in previous years.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Look at the Bensen gyros that have disappeared! Amazing how popular they once were but now just think how many are wasting away in the dark dusty corner of a garage!

I started doing these analyses about twenty years ago. At that time, the Benson was the most-common homebuilt. Now, there are over 1700 in the list of deregistered aircraft.

My guess is that Step 1 of the Benson plans said, "Register with the FAA".

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

OK, let's try this again. The problem with my previous table stemmed from a change in processes midway through, and I reused data I'd generated earlier without checking. This'll hopefully be good, now...re-ran every year with the same processes.

This is a table of the number of FAA registrations, by year, for specific homebuilt types. To be included on the list, the FAA records must show the airplane is licensed as Experimental Amateur-Build (EAB). Note this does not include foreign-registration aircraft, nor does it include planes that have been deregistered. It also doesn't include SLSA or ELSA versions of planes such as the RV-12 or RANS series.

Note that there are about 6,000 obvious homebuilts in the FAA registry that have incomplete data entry, and are NOT listed as EAB.



Type

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017


Air Command

56

56

56

54

36

35

31

31

25


Aventura

78

81

79

77

71

68

63

65

57


Avid

477

477

474

453

359

359

343

352

342


Baby/Junior Ace

278

281

279

275

230

228

228

230

225


Bede BD-4

155

153

151

134

98

91

93

92

90


Bede BD-5

77

77

78

70

49

43

40

41

38


Benson Gyro

720

717

689

518

271

218

200

198

158


Bowers Fly Baby

269

272

270

244

183

168

167

167

160


Challenger

628

659

670

657

584

594

586

593

578


Christen Eagle

245

240

238

238

214

207

206

205

204


Glasair

647

651

650

651

601

606

596

603

599


GlaStar/Sportsman

333

346

355

358

374

386

396

407

424


Harmon Rocket

78

79

83

84

88

85

87

85

85


Hatz

104

106

106

109

105

107

110

111

110


Kitfox

994

1009

1024

1027

905

918

936

950

946


Kolb (EAB)

298

304

301

296

248

241

236

235

227


Lancair (All Models)

785

814

830

850

835

847

855

875

866


Lancair IV

236

245

245

246

246

244

259

260

249


Midget Mustang

295

301

294

282

241

240

236

238

233


Murphy

183

186

187

182

173

171

171

176

174


Pietenpol

358

362

363

351

307

313

311

321

319


Pitts (EAB)

813

806

800

743

639

613

617

625

608


Pulsar/KIS

153

155

153

150

130

126

124

125

122


Quickie/Q2/Q200

305

303

297

277

168

148

140

143

130


Quicksilver EX-AB

345

348

335

296

170

163

156

162

154


RAF-2000 Gyro

123

123

126

124

113

114

110

111

90


Rand KR-2

349

350

346

314

194

175

167

167

154


RANS

625

656

682

684

627

638

659

677

673


Rotorway

489

502

500

495

404

392

374

380

350


Rutan Long-EZ

492

495

491

482

428

418

416

417

406


Rutan Varieze

476

473

467

423

323

297

286

286

272


SeaRey

213

219

229

237

231

242

242

249

255


Sonerai

309

309

307

287

215

199

194

194

184


Sonex

232

265

310

346

383

420

451

484

497


Steen Skybolt

305

301

292

284

250

246

247

248

235


Stolp

505

509

495

458

404

396

399

402

385


Stolp Starduster

441

446

435

404

357

349

351

352

337


Thorp T-18

313

311

305

290

261

259

259

262

257


Vans RV-3

183

183

179

172

155

154

158

160

152


Vans RV-4

965

976

982

987

952

956

955

965

958


Vans RV-6

1739

1767

1781

1786

1763

1783

1775

1795

1796


Vans RV-7

700

788

874

946

1000

1066

1118

1170

1220


Vans RV-8

840

913

959

1012

1038

1082

1123

1161

1198


Vans RV-9

371

419

452

484

522

552

588

611

630


Vans RV-10

177

221

253

281

304

340

366

394

419


Vans RV-12 (EAB)

0

8

19

28

36

49

53

63

68


Velocity

234

236

237

245

232

237

235

240

236


Volksplane

222

222

220

176

104

95

85

86

76


Zenair EX-AB

649

726

789

841

862

920

965

1013

1028



Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

BTW, the list above accounts for about 2/3rds of the total homebuilt registrations.

Ron Wanttaja

[Marc Zeitlin]

BTW, the list above accounts for about 2/3rds of the total homebuilt registrations.You left out COZY's of all flavors. There's way more of those than many of those you did list...

[rwanttaja]

You left out COZY's of all flavors. There's way more of those than many of those you did list...

159 in 2009, 163 in the Dec 29 2017 registry.

I have filters for ~75 homebuilt types. Three things tend to lead to building a filter...I suspect that a particular type has a lot of examples, I get curious about how common a given type is, or I have a friend with one.

The process that generates the table above is an involved one. It uses my existing filters, but takes 5-10 minutes per year to extract the data for the ~50 or so types on the list. And that's almost all just pure processing time...it's only a couple of mouse clicks. And it gets longer the more types I'm including. Might be ways to speed it up, but I'm self-taught on Access and figure I'm lucky just to get consistent results.

I've generated an abbreviated PDF version (http://www.wanttaja.com/EAB2017.pdf) of the FAA's registry of EAB aircraft. The list is sorted by aircraft model, and is about 6 meg in size.

Ron Wanttaja

[Fokker Builder]

Thanks Ron,

I used the link for the larger FAA list to look up Fokkers and saw there was a few 20 mins away that built a D VIII with an R670. Going to write him and see if I can visit. :)

Jim

[tspear]

Ron,

Let me know if you want to have someone else look at your database and make the process a bit faster (if possible).

Tim

[Frank Giger]

Interesting that my Nieuport 11 is listed as a Nieuport II by the FAA, as are a lot of them...seems to be an even split. I guess I should have put a better swoop on the numbers on the paperwork.

[rwanttaja]

Interesting that my Nieuport 11 is listed as a Nieuport II by the FAA, as are a lot of them...seems to be an even split. I guess I should have put a better swoop on the numbers on the paperwork.

Well, that's where the fun comes in when trying to extract given airplane types. Have to search RV-6, RV6, RV Six, RV XI, etc. Even have to do stuff like Bee Dee Four.

Searching for Nieuports is even tougher, because Nieuport is more of a description than an actual model. There are Redfern Nieuports, CIRCA Nieuports, Aerodrome Nieuports, and the good 'ol Newports. Finding a Nieuport in the registry is no guarantee it is like one's own.

FWIW, just searching for "Nieu", I get 81 total hits, of which 65 are confirmed registered as EABs.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Point]

I counted 91 Breezys of all the known registration variations. We're catching up on the Cozys!

[Tench745]

I noticed that the number of scratch built homebuilts, like the Piet. and Baby ace have declined steadily over the years, but the more expensive kit built aircraft like the RVs, Sea Rays, and Sonex have steadily increased.
Do you suppose that's a reflection on the longevity of the design, or perhaps something else?
Perhaps it illustrates the improving affluence of a select set of builders, moving up to more expensive options?
Or maybe a collective fear of self-directed construction ie. no build manual to walk you through it.
Or, the higher performance is "in" now vs the low and slow of some older homebuilts.

[Kyle Boatright]

I noticed that the number of scratch built homebuilts, like the Piet. and Baby ace have declined steadily over the years, but the more expensive kit built aircraft like the RVs, Sea Rays, and Sonex have steadily increased.
Do you suppose that's a reflection on the longevity of the design, or perhaps something else?
Perhaps it illustrates the improving affluence of a select set of builders, moving up to more expensive options?
Or maybe a collective fear of self-directed construction ie. no build manual to walk you through it.
Or, the higher performance is "in" now vs the low and slow of some older homebuilts.

The entire industry is intent on pushing builders upscale. Garmin? Dynon, AFS, GRT, etc... They, and Van's, and the rest of the industry know that you'll spend 5x the $$ on the panel and accessories for an RV-X than you'll spend for the panel on a Pietenpol. Same thing with the engine... Lycoming loves high end EAB's. So does Hartzell. They are glad to sell to the Piet or Fly-Baby builder, but the real money is in higher end stuff. So they push you in that direction. The plans only airplanes basically only exist in the little bitty AD's in the back of SA. You won't see a huge Hatz booth at Oshkosh. Fly Baby or Piet either. So those designs don't even register with today's 30 year old who becomes interested in building an airplane.

Directionally, Sport Aviation does the same thing. With few exceptions, which aircraft are featured? The expensive ones with professional panels, builder assist, and a $15k pro paint job. Right or wrong it is easy to believe that the EAA is happy to push the homebuilt fleet up market. EAA makes money off of the big vendors, whether in SA advertisements, booth space at Oshkosh, or in corporate donations. EAA wants those high dollar vendors happy and participating because that makes money for EAA.

So.. Short version: Marketing.

And now I'll go back to sanding on the RV-10 in the basement...

[Bill Berson]

The number of "active" EA-B is about 21,000 (est). Goes up and down and above and below 20,000 past decade.
Latest info (2015) on left.
6883

[rwanttaja]

The number of "active" EA-B is about 21,000 (est). Goes up and down and above and below 20,000 past decade.
Latest info (2015) on left.
Bill, that picture is teeny tiny and doesn't, apparently enlarge. But is it from the FAA GA Survey? Don't get me started on the GA survey. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I noticed that the number of scratch built homebuilts, like the Piet. and Baby ace have declined steadily over the years, but the more expensive kit built aircraft like the RVs, Sea Rays, and Sonex have steadily increased.
Do you suppose that's a reflection on the longevity of the design, or perhaps something else?
Pretty simple, really: People are more willing to pay money to reduce construction time.

You see the same thing in a lot of hobby fields. Thirty years ago, you either built an RC airplane from plans or from a kit where you still had to glue all the ribs, spars, stringers, bulkheads, etc. Nowadays, most are sold ready-to-fly or Almost ready-to-fly (ARF). People are less interested in spending time constructing.

Same thing for the full-scale airplanes.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Bill, that picture is teeny tiny and doesn't, apparently enlarge. But is it from the FAA GA Survey? Don't get me started on the GA survey. :-)

Ron Wanttaja
Yes. From here : https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/
I tried to get GAMA data, but site kept crashing my iPad.

[rwanttaja]

Bill, that picture is teeny tiny and doesn't, apparently enlarge. But is it from the FAA GA Survey?Yes. From here : https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/

OK...here's a version of that page that isn't so small.
http://www.wanttaja.com/ga_survey.JPG

As can be seen, the 2015 GA survey assumes that, out of 31,765 registered homebuilt aircraft, that 21,195 are active.

But let's look at a little history. The 2010 GA Survey produced an almost identical number of active homebuilts....21270. But the 2013 GA Survey showed only 17,503 active homebuilts. So, according to the GA survey, almost three thousand homebuilts quit flying in the 2010-2014 timeframe.

What ELSE happened during the 2010-2013 timeframe? The FAA re-registration effort. Where, if you owned an airplane and didn't renew the registration, the FAA removed your plane from the rolls.

OVER TWENTY PERCENT of the homebuilt fleet was removed from the registry in this process....about 7800 planes.

My guess is that is the vast majority of those 7800 aircraft were already inactive. Yet by the official FAA survey, roughly 2700 of them were planes that were active and flying?

What happened? Simple: The GA Survey was incompatible with the administrative changes to the registry.

The GA survey works by sending out hundreds of surveys to registered aircraft owners. Part of the survey includes recording how many hours your plane flies each year. If six out of ten returned surveys state that the airplane flew in the previous year, that means that 60% of the fleet is active. If there are 30,000 registered airplanes, the survey multiplies that number by 60% and announces that 18,000 of the registered aircraft are active.

However...not all surveys are returned. In some cases, it's just people who don't like replying to the government. In others, of course, the plane or its registered owner no longer exists. Non-returned surveys aren't factored in.

And, of course, the vast majority of the planes removed from the FAA rolls DID not return a survey. So these weren't counted either as active or inactive.

But what happened, of course, is that the NUMBER of airplanes decreased. So the total registered aircraft drops from 30,000 to 25,000... and 60% of that 15,000. So the number of active airplanes takes a hit.

I'm not arguing with the process the GA survey people use. I think it's about the only way to do it, and in normal circumstances, it's fine.

We *know* that the GA Survey people recognized what the re-registration effort did to the quality of their results. You'll note they didn't publish their results the first year of the re-registration effort ("The 2011 GA Survey is not available and data will not be published. ") So they know the results were ****ed.

Sadly, no one else does. And there are people making decisions on that bad data.

Take, for instance, the homebuilt accident rate. In 2010, there were 188 accidents for 21,270 active aircraft. About 0.88%. There were almost an identical number of accidents in 2014... 184. But the number of active aircraft had dropped to 18,873. So the rate shot up to 0.97%. That's an apparent 10% increase in the accident rate. And people did get upset, even though in reality, the number of active aircraft had actually increased (4,000 new homebuilts added between 2010 and 2014).

Ron "I told you not to get me started" Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

What about the Van's 10,000th aircraft number that was recently announced? Is that number worldwide?

[Kyle Boatright]

What about the Van's 10,000th aircraft number that was recently announced? Is that number worldwide?

Yep.

[DaleB]

Pretty simple, really: People are more willing to pay money to reduce construction time.
Yes, but I suspect it's not just that. I'll speak purely from my own experience, and that of a few others I know. I think a lot of people are building now not because they have a lifelong dream to build an airplane on their own. They want to fly, they want to travel, and they don't want to be saddled with a 30-40-50 year old airplane that will eat them out of house and home. Mama doesn't want to climb into something that looks and smells like it's been parked on the ramp since the 70s. If you want a fast, efficient cross country traveling machine and don't want it to be a decades-long project, well, now there are very nice kits for that, and an average person can build one.

I'm building something now from plans - all wood, slow, totally unsuited for anything but short-range fun. That came after the RV. It may or may not ever get finished.

[rwanttaja]

What about the Van's 10,000th aircraft number that was recently announced? Is that number worldwide?
Yep. My list is based on the US registry. In addition:

1. My list only covers those airplanes recorded as being licensed in the Experimental Amateur-Built category. Over 1200 RVs are not.

2. My list covers only those airplanes on the FAA registry as of 29 December 2017. Over a thousand RVs have been removed from the registry.

3. My list covers only those RVs where the builder used a common term as the aircraft make or model.... some variation of "RV" and a number.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

My list only covers those airplanes recorded as being licensed in the Experimental Amateur-Built category. Over 1200 RVs are not.

While I'm thinking about it, here's my list of probable Phantom Homebuilts (http://www.wanttaja.com/phantom.pdf) from the 2016 registry.

"Phantom Homebuilts" is my term for common Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft that do not have a certification category entry in the FAA registration database. These are not officially counted in the tally of homebuilt aircraft, though are counted as a homebuilt if they crash.

This list starts out as a list of every aircraft that doesn't show a certification category (26,000+), of which I try to weed out the obvious production companies. There will be some cases that use modified manufacturer names that didn't get caught.

Ron Wanttaja

[Tench745]

You won't see a huge Hatz booth at Oshkosh. Fly Baby or Piet either. So those designs don't even register with today's 30 year old who becomes interested in building an airplane.
Funny you should say that in response to the 30 year old who just started a Junior Ace. ;)

[DaleB]

Funny you should say that in response to the 30 year old who just started a Junior Ace. ;)
Yeah, but he's an outlier... of course we ALL are, to some degree.

[conodeuce]

Back in the 1950's , the community of aviation enthusiasts who labored in their garages were constructing generally simple aircraft with inexpensive materials. You could be a "working Joe" and build and fly an airplane. The prosperous years that followed, including the bubble of baby boomers with plenty of expendable cash (or at least who were able to get a second mortgage on their house) allowed the airplane kit industry to blossom.

But, folks, those days are ending. What this does to the kit industry over the next several years will likely be gruesome. But, as long as we can still weld up fuselages and plane spruce boards, we can keep flying.

[Frank Giger]

Back in the 1950's , the community of aviation enthusiasts who labored in their garages were constructing generally simple aircraft with inexpensive materials. You could be a "working Joe" and build and fly an airplane. The prosperous years that followed, including the bubble of baby boomers with plenty of expendable cash (or at least who were able to get a second mortgage on their house) allowed the airplane kit industry to blossom.

But, folks, those days are ending. What this does to the kit industry over the next several years will likely be gruesome. But, as long as we can still weld up fuselages and plane spruce boards, we can keep flying.

My long standing prediction that in 30 years the General Aviation population will look very different, with a lot of high end production stuff and a lot of lower end homebuilts....kind of how it was in the early days of aviation.

[conodeuce]

.... and a lot of lower end homebuilts....kind of how it was in the early days of aviation.

You can count on me to occupy the lower end.

[DaleB]

My long standing prediction that in 30 years the General Aviation population will look very different, with a lot of high end production stuff and a lot of lower end homebuilts....kind of how it was in the early days of aviation.
I'm puzzled by why you would make that prediction. Over the past 20-30 years there has been an ever-growing crop of "higher-end" homebuilts. In fact, don't I recall reading that there are more homebuilts added to the GA fleet every year than production aircraft? I would guess that for every lower-end scratch built plane completed, there are a dozen or two that would qualify as other than low-end. It seems like that trend has been increasing, not decreasing.

Or am I just misunderstanding your position?