Back in 2004, I uploaded my first image to Airport-Data.com.

This was N153JS Spring/Fisher Celebrity.

Manufacturer - Spring Jack

Model - Spring/Fisher Celebrity

I uploaded it as a Nieuport 24 Replica because that is what it was built as and by which it would be recognised. Nowhere in the official data is this referred to except in my accompanying note.

Another example is N27WS Sanders Wiley C Jr / NA T2B. cn 1155235

Manufacturer - Sanders Wiley C Jr

Model - Sanders / NA T2B

This is, I believe, an ex US Navy North American T-2B Buckeye cn 310-30 codes 155235/S-030, but this has no recognition in the current database entry.

It does seem strange that both the manufacturer and model are given over to the present owner, particularly as the airframe may change hands and then what!

I hope that this is not seen as controversy or criticism but I would welcome comment or observation.

Malcolm.

Malcom,

The Nieuport 24 Replica is now listed under the N153JS entry as the previous registration, canceled in 1991 and reissued to another aircraft, the Fisher Celebrity.

In the USA the registrations numbers are reused on a regular basis. If I buy an airplane and want to change the number, I apply for a new number, either a random number or one that I choose to personalize my airplane. (If I were to buy a P-51 Mustang I might want the number N51ZA for my personal use : : )

The old number then becomes available for someone else, to be issued at random.

As far as the T-2 Buckeye and it's data...you'll have to understand that the aircraft is considered a amateur built, experimental category aircraft in the USA. It is registered as a Sanders NA T2B (North American T-2B) . This is the game that owners of some aircraft have to play to be able to register and fly them in the US. It will always be considered a Sanders built aircraft as long as it is registered in the US no matter what the reg. number is.

Government regulations being what they are I'm sure you understand the mess they can create.

I hope this helps.

Zane

Zane is correct regarding rebuilt/restored warbirds in US FAA registration. They take the name of the rebuilder/restorer and are also classed Experimental Category if no original logbook. Some are rebuilt from wrecks and parts from several aircraft. That is common. Surplussed military aircraft rarely if ever have their documentation (logbooks, records, gripe sheets) accompanying them. They have been surveyed and struck from official service records, declared surplus. After WWII, for example the Experimental Aircraft Association purchased their Boeing B-17 bomber warbird now called "Aluminum Overcast" for $750.00 from a GSA war surplus sale with fixed price-buyer pays as-is condition to haul away.

Thank you to both Doug & Zane for the informative replies.

I don't want to labour the point but my only remaining concern is that many from outside the USA in particular are unlikely to recognise what a "Sanders NA T2B" really is and those more knowledgeable will wonder why it is not referred to as a North American T-2B Buckeye. I still maintain that whether an airframe is a replica, a composite or an original, this basic information should be included in the database as a guide to identification regardless (but not in lieu of) of the official description laid down by the authorities. To leave this to the uploader's comments would be unreliable.

Malcolm.

Malcolm, I do believe your final remaining concern is highly doubtful, and I also do believe you are belaboring a specious and strictly personal point. Are you really going to mistake a North American T-2B subsonic trainer with a Mitsubishi T-2 supersonic trainer? Inconceivable to me.

First, aircraft photos speak for themselves-the aircraft is recognizable as to what it is. Second, with rebuilt/restored warbirds as with any homebuilt Experimental class aircraft, the builder is absolutely entitled to name it ANYTHING HE WANTS!. No one else seems to be bothered by this. A warbird restorer deserves all the credit for his noble and expensive pursuit in preservation. Apparently, you have never built, rebuilt or restored an aircraft. Otherwise, you might certainly think differently.

Take a look at N406L-it is a Provo 6. Then take a look at N777PX, it is a Kornof Komet 7. The first is made from a VAN's RV-6 kit, the second is made from a VAN's RV-7 kit. ALL the Harmon Rockets are modified from VAN's RV- kits. I also have photos of a VAN's RV-6.2, which name is assigned by the builder because of engine change from designer spec. The "Authorities" do not provide these names-they take for the FAA database what the builder supplies to them as identifying data as to make and model. But, and this is a big but-for FAA aircraft recognition by Air Traffic Controllers in FAA and Contract Towers, they assign names for pilots to use-to wit-the Nanchang China CJ-6A is called by the pilot a YAK and by controllers a YAK, even though they differ in appearance. Are you also going to take on our FAA? Do these names really confuse or offput you? Just where will your argument take you?

We mostly recognize aircraft photos for what they are. And I repeat, the builder is absolutely entitled to provide any name, including his own, to his or her creation, or re-creation. Try to live with it, and please honor the builder/restorer for preserving a warbird or going through the painstaking labor and expense in dollars, pounds, euros, whatever and years of building an aircraft, not a trivial or cheap pursuit! The sole remaining F2G Corsair flying took 12,000 hours to rebuild. The EAA honors these builders with coveted, sought for awards. By the way, I am an aircraft pilot, AOPA member and EAA member, and this has influenced my input here.

Rarely have I come across such a patronising and presumptive response in any forum that I have contributed to, which at the same time fails to address the point I raised.

Firstly, I have had an interest in aviation for well over 50 years, generated originally by my late father’s service in the Royal Flying corps in WW1. I can therefore assure you, Doug, that it is also inconceivable to me that I should fail to recognise the differences between the two airframes you mention. Have I missed something?

Yes, photographs do speak for themselves once they can be located, and successful location by an enquirer does depend upon suitable universal data being specified in any database.

Yes, pilots, owners, etc, are surely free to name their aircraft as they so wish and nowhere do I say that they should not do so. Relevance?

Is anyone bothered by this? Probably not within your delightful country, but the world does not end at the shores of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This side of the pond within the confines of European aviation authorities, airframes are listed by their original manufacturer and type, or in case of self builds, usually by the designers name. It matters not if the aircraft becomes a warbird, rebuild, replica, etc. These do not change during the life of the airframe. That is the system we have, your authorities have an entirely different system. I have no argument over this as you suggest.

How would you KNOW what experience I have in respect of aircraft, that “I have never built, rebuilt or restored ..” . What an arrogant and completely irrelevant comment to make.

As for “taking on the FAA”, where did you manage to conjure that up from! I have accessed the FAA site on many occasions and have never had a problem with confusion and off-putting names as you allege.

The point I was trying to make, and which I will expand upon, is that regardless of Aircraft-Data’s basic listing, for the benefit of a world wide audience, it would be beneficial to record the generally accepted manufacturer and type. After all, this is a growing website which I would hope would have aspirations beyond the rather narrow aviation world which you are so eager to describe, such that seriously interested parties will visit the site seeking information, looking for images of particular aircraft types. Thus it should have an output as well as an input, and not be about the over enthusiastic posting of snaps as an ego trip.

Have the courtesy to focus once more Doug on my last response and note the words ”regardless and not in lieu of”. I was simply suggesting, perhaps now regrettably, that the inclusion of such data would be to the benefit of the site.

In your final paragraph, anyone would think that I was in some way trying to demerit the work of those in the field of aviation preservation. Where did that come from? The world of aviation invites a multitude of interests. Mine happen to be aviation history and photography and forgive me if I don’t apologise for that!

Finally, no I an NOT a pilot or a member of any official aviation related organisation but do not consider myself in any way inferior or ill informed in comparison to those who are.

Blue skies my friend!

I still maintain that whether an airframe is a replica, a composite or an original,

this basic information should be included in the database as a guide to identification regardless (but not in lieu of)

of the official description laid down by the authorities.

This may have some merit.

If I understand you, this would have nothing to do with the FAA records but describes what something appears to be or was originally created as?

A new search field? Is that what you are asking for?

You can see why this may in fact be a problem for some warbirds. In many cases it is impossible for someone to have that origin data.

Like Doug said, many times there is no logbook. No record. Or aircraft are built from scratch and reused parts…

Then there is the case of differing opinions. Someone may claim one type of origin… while another claims a different one.

(I think there was a case of where a Sea Fury was built… in the UK or in Iraq from spare parts and such.. this could be problematic…)

Pictures do describe what something is… but I still do see your point. It may help in the “typed” search for aircraft types.

Perhaps this could be something that is passed on to Ken.

Just a reminder… Let us not read into posts what has not been said.

A Clarification:

By the way, I am an aircraft pilot, AOPA member and EAA member, and this has influenced my input here.

Finally, no I am NOT a pilot or a member of any official aviation related organization but do not consider myself in any way inferior or ill informed in comparison to those who are.

Malcolm, you may have read this the wrong way.

My interpretation of what Doug said was like this.

Both of you are quite passionate about aviation. That is clear. You both have different views. Perhaps there may be a middle ground. Let us try not to get offended by something that was not said.

Paul

Oh dear, handbags at thirty paces!

Seriously though, I don't see a problem with aeroplanes being classified under

the type and description as shown on the US civil register. It gives credit to

the blokes who took the trouble to build them or renovate them. Also, the vast majority of the people who access this sight will recognise them for what they are, including us English and European enthusiasts. A Buckeye is a Buckeye whether North American built it or Homer Simpson.

Take the DC3. The Lisunov LI-2 and the Showa L2D should be shown as such.

I wouldn't expect them to be shown as licence built DC3s other than in the notes. Maybe a slightly different scenario but the argument still applies.

Just as an aside and I may be showing long term ignorance, I only learnt today that the name Dakota came fron the acronym DACOTA i.e Douglas Aircraft CO Transport Aircraft. You probably know this already but I always assumed it was named after the collective term for the two American states by the British.

I must admit they are all Daks to me be they C47, C53, C117, Gooney Bird, R4D-8 whatever. I know it's incorrect but there you go.

Anyway, life's too short to get stressed out about these things. Agreeing to differ is always the best option.

All the best to all members.

ROB

Seriously though, I don't see a problem with aeroplanes being classified under

the type and description as shown on the US civil register.

Rob, there really isn't a problem with it.

I think Malcom was pointing out that the US system of providing credit to the present owner/builder is somewhat inconsistent.

And that it may change from owner to owner. This could be confusing to those outside of the states.

He does have a point... Unless one looks at the photo, it is difficult to determine what something really is.

That may cause problems with searches for aircraft in the current system. Or problems for those who may not be familiar with that type of aircraft.

I do understand the other side as well. Aircraft may not have complete histories or logbooks.

Data is hard to pin down as different people may see things in different ways.

And of course credit to those who have rebuilt or modified an airframe should be provided, especially when the aircraft has been modified to be something new.

This topic does deserve more “civil” discussion. Would anyone else like to weigh in on the topic?

You are probably right. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick.

Either way I didn't intend to appear to criticise Malcolm and apologise if it

seemed that way. He's taken some cracking photos and I look forward to seeing many more.

All the best

Rob

Doug I believe you owe Malcolm an apology.

Malcolm you have pointed out one of the problems with our registration system that drives me nuts... I think that folks registering a former military aircraft have to register the aircraft this way in the official paperwork because of funky regulatory loopholes. Home built aircraft and their registration is about as confusing as it can be because of individual idiosyncrasies. It is the nature of the beast.

But it does make for some good fun for an aircraft registration minutiae geek like me! : :

With the additional discourse here, I believe I can directly address Malcolm's concern. His key sentence is "I still maintain that whether an airframe is a replica, a composite or an original, this basic information should be included in the database as a guide to identification (but not in lieu of) the official description laid down by the authorities".

Malcom, you apparently do not acknowledge or yet understand that in America, the "Authorities", meaning our Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DO NOT lay down ANY official description of a registered aircraft. THEY TAKE WHAT THE OWNER PROVIDES AS TO NAME, MAKE AND MODEL OF AIRCRAFT. This is why there are inconsistencies, even errors, in aircraft descriptions in the FAA aircraft registration database. And that FAA database is what is automatically downloaded and updated here in this website. Both Zane, (particularly Zane), and I have explained to you the differences or peculiarities of aircraft registrations taken from the FAA aircraft database and the reasons thereof. You thanked us and acknowledged the explanations.

You apparently want a universal worldwide database that is entirely consistent with your wishes re full or accurate aircraft identification. That utopian view you are absolutely entitled to, but is it realistic?

You do write you have accessed our "FAA site on many occasions and have never had a problem with confusion and off-putting names as you allege." Yet, your original post here criticizes that very FAA database on a Sanders NA T2B. You cannot have your cake and eat it to. I am not patronizing you-merely pointing out obvious inconsistency in your posting.

Perhaps you cannot accept that we won in 1783 and thus have a different, flawed system of aircraft registration than your CAA's. Our FAA does not cater to a worldwide aircraft registration system, or wishes thereof. As I have written here, live with it, please!, there is no universal alternative. I thank everyone for their Forum input.

Doug...

I understand what you are saying... And your right... the FAA is a juggernaut that we will not be able to change.

Right or Wrong...We will have to live with it.

In the spirit of good will to our neighbors, or as they say in the U.K. ... ( neighbours ) ... lets not bring up 1783?

No need to stir up that mess.

Besides, the UK makes some of the best aircraft (THE SPITFIRE!) , even if they drive on the wrong side of the road! :)

Malcolm and Doug... both of you two take some outstanding pictures. I look forward to seeing more from both of you.

And remember... each time you guys dialog, I and many others learn a great deal. So keep it civil and teach the rest of us.

EVERYONE:

To sum up... let us all play nice.

No one wants to see anyone else get upset.

This is after all only dialog. We all know the FAA will never change.

-Paul

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to make further comment on these matters and to finally clarify the point I was attempting to raise.

It does seem that for whatever reasons, the FAA has become my ‘bête noire’ as far as Airport-Data is concerned. Once again let me state categorically that I have no problems with this registration database – it is what it is – period.

Doug in his later response is suggesting that I have in mind a universal database. No I have not and in any event there would as much chance of this happening as there is of the world agreeing on what to do with climate change. So please let us put on one side this red herring.

… and Doug, please, I did not criticise the FAA in my original posting , in fact I finished with ..

“I hope that this is not seen as controversy or criticism … “

Also …

“…. you apparently do not acknowledge or yet understand that in America, the "Authorities", meaning our Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DO NOT lay down ANY official description of a registered aircraft.”

But Doug, I do (that is to say as much as anyone does!) and fail to understand how you have come to this conclusion.

The second point relates to the naming of aircraft. Despite all that Rob said in his earlier contribution, I can assure you that aircraft are not renamed in our neck of the woods. He talks of Lisunov and Showa DC3’s. These airframes were produced in commercial quantity production by these two companies and rightly retain the names of these manufacturers as with others such as F-16’s produced by General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Fokker, SABCA, etc, despite significant numbers of diehards who believe all F-16’s should be regarded as GD products. On the other hand the production of Tiger Moths and Spitfires during WW2 took place at car factories, etc, across the UK but the names and designations remained – I digress!

The renaming of aircraft does not happen across here; the very idea of a Joe Bloggs HF8C (Spitfire) would have Douglas Bader turning in his grave and riots at Duxford – it just wouldn’t happen. Yet this has nothing to do with the meritorious work of individual aircraft restorers celebrated here by magazine articles and Airshow attendances. I applaud their work just as much as any other aviation enthusiast.

Let me express my wishes more definitively!

Using one of the two examples in my original posting, anyone inputting “North American T-2B Buckeye” into the search field would not pick up on Sanders Wiley C Jr / NA T2B and this may be the very airframe they are seeking.

All I was trying to suggest was that if the database contained additional fields where the previous identity of N27WS could be entered, then regardless of the renaming of any such airframes, this search would reveal ALL Buckeyes and the existing data that each entry provides. The full and detailed past history is not necessary; I just would like to see a linkage to the airframes basic previous identity. Nothing to change about its present identity, no effect upon its FAA listing, just some help for those who may wish to delve a little into the past. A souped up Mustang flying the air show circuit is indeed a fitting tribute to the owner/pilot but there is also an interest in the occasion when another pilot may have been at the controls, perhaps fighting for his country. Why not provide a linkage?

Ultimately the conclusion/decision lies with Site Admin but my thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion.

… and finally!

This may not be the right place, so forgive me this once!

Doug, if you haven’t yet identified your Unknown Learjet, it is as you say a Learjet 45, and the missing data is reg N4DA, cn 45-283.

Blue skies all!

Aircraft registration history is the very problem that often made me pull my hair out. As described in above examples, an airfram can be renamed, renovated, combined with others, and aircraft registry number can be reused, reassigned. So tracking down every single aircraft on this planet is (almost) a mission impossible.

Different countries/people have different ways to solve this problem. Given the resources they have, I believe every civil aviation administration authorities in the world must have carefully considered how to solve this problem, and came up with the best solution to fit their very own situation.

Here's what we do on airport-data.com:

An airframe is identified by Manufacturer, Model and C/N. An aircraft registry link to a airframe, along with registry number, owner info, etc. An airframe may have multiple registry records, and the same registry number can link to different airframes.

In Malcolm's case, Sanders Wiley C Jr / NA T2B. cn 1155235 is an airframe different from the original T2B airframe, as the manufacturer/model has changed. The registry number history cannot solve Malcolm's question here, as they are assigned to different airframes.

Hope I explained it clearly.

Ken

Thank you, Malcolm. I cross-referenced N4DA with Airliners.net and they have a photo of the same aircraft uploaded. I shall make the N number identification on my uploaded photo.

You are very welcome Doug.

That in fact was the prime source of my information, that and good ole Google of course.

Kind regards,

Malcolm.