Printable View
It's actually not even that difficult. The N-number will go dormant for a while and not immediately assigned to a different aircraft. Know a case where several months past registration deadline, a plane was re-registered and retained the same n-number.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1600vw
You expect correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Berg
With less than 45 days left until the end of the re-registration period, it's hard to resist the urge to do a full analysis. But...
I took a look at the RVs on the de-registration list. Here's a breakdown:
Total: 408 (this includes 126 that had a blank entry for certification type)
RV-3: 49
RV-4: 96
RV-6: 130 (includes trigear models)
RV-7: 51 (includes trigear models)
RV-8: 36 (includes trigear models)
RV-9: 31 (includes trigear models)
RV-10: 14
RV-12: 1
However, 14% of these saw registration cancelled due to export to another country. They went a lot of places, including Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Croatia. 63% of the cancelled RV-7s were exported, the single RV-12, and 71% of the RV-10s.
Of the four RV-10s that were NOT exported, three had accidents. I'll do a full cross-reference to the NTSB list once the re-registration process is complete at the end of December.
Ron Wanttaja
More interesting stuff. This is a plot of the number of homebuilts deregistered vs. the "year of manufacture" in the FAA records.
Attachment 3470
Note the big spike in 1983. This is comprised of a *lot* of ultralight-inspired homebuilts: Quicksilvers, Goldwings, Eippers, Rallys, Tierras, etc.
Ron Wanttaja
Wow, Ron. Looking at the last five years vs '90-'95. Wow. Potential homebuilders dying? Uninterested? Uninformed about possibilities? Priced out? Regulated out? Buying light sport? Buying pre-owned EAB? buying boats? Ultralights? Factory builts? Wow. What a change.
Actually, my fuzzy reccollection is that in those '90's there was a sort of transition in kits that straddled the ultralight-homebuilt border. I think that is when ultralights started to look a lot more like traditional airplanes rather than hang gliders and ballistic parachutes started to get popular. The economy was good and more folks tried out flying. I think that ships like the CGS Hawk were popular then, and some of those go N-numbers. Around that time two seat ultralights came on the scene and had to get N-numbers. I will guess that the spike in the graph for that time period might reflect that those machines wore out or were retired to the trash bin.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
Sounds good. Also, there was a big surge in kit sales starting in the mid-80s, but these planes took years to build. So kits purchased as part of this boom would likely have early-to-mid '90s completion dates.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Ron Wanttaja
I would not be surprised if this program of having to register again was not a big profit maker to whichever company was contracted to do the computer program on it, though I don't have facts along that line. If you don't understand a program or a crime, it useually follows the money.
But the idea that this is a way to fight terrorism is nonsense.
All four of the planes hijacked on 9-11 for the biggest terror strike ever against the U S were registered, and well known to the FAA, but that had no affect on preventing the terror acts.
So there is no logic behind this reregister program, especially having to do it every year.
But who ever said logic was part of the govt.
As the attached figure shows, the 80s and 90s saw a steep rise in the number of homebuilts. The dark bar shows the number of homebuilts completed in a given year, as of the December 2010 FAA registry, and the yellow bar shows the current listing. The 80s and 90s took what appeared to be a disproportionate hit because there were more airplanes there to eliminate.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com
Attachment 3472
What actually gets me, when looking at the data, is the number of registrations of relatively recent homebuilts that have been cancelled...700 of the cancelled homebuilt registrations where of planes completed in the past ten years. 170 were exported. What happened to the rest of these relatively new aircraft? Accidents will explain some, but may not cover them all.
The reregistration program is having a huge impact. Prior to 10/1/2010, when the program started, the FAA had cancelled about 28,000 aircraft registrations of all types... with the cancellations dating back to 1950. In the three years since the program started, the FAA has cancelled nearly three times the number of planes. The overall US fleet is down 15% since the program started.
Ron Wanttaja
OK, a look at the certified aircraft world. About 80% of the airplanes deregistered since 10/1/2010 were type-certified airplanes.
The percentages below are the percentage of the aircraft of that type deregistered during the current program:
Cessna (all): 16.5%
Cessna 150/152: 23.6%
Cessna 172: 13.0% (about the same percentage as the C-170)
Cessna 182: 9.7%
Nearly one in four (22.6%) of the deregistered aircraft were Cessnas.
Piper (all): 16.4%
Piper Tripacer: 26.0%
Piper PA-28: 11.5%
Piper J-3: 13.4%
Piper PA-11 through PA-18: 12.2%
Beech: 16.4%
Beech 35/36: 10.4%
Some of the older companies:
Aeronca: 14.6%
Stinson: 21.5%
Mooney: 10.5%
Luscombe: 17.7%
Taylorcraft: 21.5%
I'm actually a bit surprised by this; I expected more lost classics that would be unfindable.
Who took the biggest hit? Surprisingly, it was some of the major non-GA manufacturers:
Boeing: 26%
Douglas/McDonnell: 39.5%
Lockheed: 45.8%
However, about a third of the Boeing numbers are Stearmans, and another third are exports.
Ron Wanttaja