What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"small" N numbers at SnF

L'Avion

Well Known Member
At least one Rocket violated (written ticket) for small N numbers on a Rocket (confirmed), several others reported violated, mostly Rockets.

A controversy renewed!

Sgt. Joe Friday would be looking for: "....the facts, Ma'am, just the facts."

Looking for whatever regs might apply, any help?
 
A controversy renewed!

Not in my book. Fly-Ins are a good place for enforcement. Its a great way for the FAA to check for compliance using minimal resource's. Its no different than a holiday weekend on our lake when the Marine Enforcement Division of the local Sheriff Department is out trolling the lake. Lots of boats, people, and violators on holidays. Those who operate their boats in compliance with the law have nothing to worry about. Same goes with airplanes.
 
From Table 3:

"Displaying an N-number on a limited or restricted category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft

Unless you?ve included the aircraft?s category letter in the N-number between the nationality designation and the registration number (for example, NR1234 for a restricted aircraft), the aircraft is required to display near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit the term ?limited,? ?restricted,? ?experimental,? or ?provisional airworthiness,? as appropriate. The term should be visible to anyone entering the aircraft and should be 2 to 6 inches high."

Does this mean we could put NX on our aircraft an omit the EXPERIMENTAL signage?
 
Part 45.29 (b)((iii)

3" for Experimental amateur built, if max cruising speed is under 180KCAS.

The AC referenced above may provide more info, but it is not regulatory so the FAA can't cite against an AC.
 
Well, NOT!!

AC 45-2D

As I understand it 180KT max cruising speed for 3 inch tall N#'s.

Last time I looked at AC45 2D it specified 'cruising speed' as the normal cruising speed of the ship at a normal cruising power setting at a normal cruising altitude. I see it only says 'cruising speed' now.

I find reference (FAR 45.29) to the max speed for 3" numbers as 180KT CAS, which is an indicated number. No power setting is specified. I know of no Rocketeers who can say (truthfully) that their Rocket will CRUISE in excess of 180KT CAS, tho it will SPRINT to that number.

If they want to infer that cruising speed is a TAS number, then they COULD have a point, but they would not be following the regs, as written.

If you know of anyone having a problem at SnF with this issue, have 'em contact me.

Carry on!
Mark
 
From Table 3:

"Displaying an N-number on a limited or restricted category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft

Unless you?ve included the aircraft?s category letter in the N-number between the nationality designation and the registration number (for example, NR1234 for a restricted aircraft), the aircraft is required to display near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit the term ?limited,? ?restricted,? ?experimental,? or ?provisional airworthiness,? as appropriate. The term should be visible to anyone entering the aircraft and should be 2 to 6 inches high."

Does this mean we could put NX on our aircraft an omit the EXPERIMENTAL signage?

In most cases...you cannot...

See: Sec 45.22

Cheers,
Stein
 
In most cases...you cannot...

See: Sec 45.22

Cheers,
Stein

Doesn't it depend on the RV model?

(b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under Sec. 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with Secs. 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:
(1) It displays in accordance with Sec. 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" followed by:
(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or
(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft ("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and
(2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.


RV-3s and RV-4s would qualify under the 30 year rule. Also with 2 inch numbers, not 3 inch ones.

Two more years to go for the RV-6s (TD versions)
 
I'd like to see how the Fed was able to prove that particular Rocket has X cruise speed - and is therefore in violation.

I'd also like to see how the Fed gets around their own prohibition against sweeping enforcement actions at a fly in.

Sounds like a case of breaking the rules so they can enforce the rules...

Yet another reason to avoid fly ins.
 
Wonder what this cruises at......
Back a while (maybe in the 70-80s) 3" numbers were allowed for other aircraft that are not allowed to have them now. The ruling change allows for those aircraft to maintain the 3" numbers until the aircraft is repainted. We have several A36s at our airport that refuse to repaint just to keep the 3" numbers.
 
Location is also an issue

It could also be an issue of where they are located.
A local rv6 was violated for having the numbers tucked under the horizontal stabilizer. I believe the regs read that the entire registration number must be placed in front of the HS if the numbers are on the fuselage.
I see a lot of RVs with the numbers under the HS which is just begging for the FAA to tag them.
Either they haven't been looking for this or a lot of owners have been lucky to not get violated for it.
 
When I built my F-1 Rocket, the DAR asked me how fast it would cruise. I wasn't sure but my best estimate was just under 180 kts. I don't believe the FAA sets speed limitations on experimental aircraft. IMHO
 
I thought the 3 Rockets that were cited at Sun-n-Fun were a part of an April Fool's joke? Was this confirmed to be real? :confused:
 
I did see the FAA with the rockets the day after this OP at SnF. I steered very clear of course. There were several FAA officials with the planes and owners. I know nothing of what was transpiring.
 
another good reason to fly an RV.
57618435926319081128511.jpg
 
I'd also like to see how the Fed gets around their own prohibition against sweeping enforcement actions at a fly in.

Actually, this isn't the first time they've done "sweeping enforcement" at S&F. The Great Ultralight Trainer Massacre of 2000 comes to mind. Some even say it was the beginning of what we know today as Light Sport.

KLAL is just east of the Polk County line, which (I think) puts it in the Orlando FSDO service area. Anybody know anybody there?
 
I was staying in HBC when this happened. Rumors started flying. The FAA is doing ramp checks during a fly-in, over bearing FAA, how dare they, etc., etc.

One of the experimental exhibition judges went and talked to the FAA guys to get the story. The FAA replied that they wre not doing ramp checks. At the same time, they couldn't ignore what might be a blatant violation. In one case, the numbers were so close to the main paint scheme as to be invisible from 10' away.

I'm not a big fan of the FAA but they apparently only called the possible offenders in to give them a verbal notice. No paperwork was asked for, no checking of licenses, certificates, medicals, etc. Nothing written up.

No one likes to be called out, but this seems pretty reasonable to me.

Tom H.
 
A lot of guys are stubborn about their numbers. They know theirs aren't even close to legal, but for some reason they take it personal and insist on doing it their way. No sympathy here. I had a cousin that used to drive on home made license plates. He'd get pulled over too.
 
The original premise of this thread strongly suggests this is the "small number vs. cruise speed" issue... If that is the case, then I still call BS on that aspect, AND the enforcement at a fly in.

If it turns out that this was an obvious (i.e. "obfuscated number") registration violation, then so be it. Bad on the owners to put their sins on display.

It would be nice if we had the actual facts.
 
Good to hear both sides

I was staying in HBC when this happened. Rumors started flying. The FAA is doing ramp checks during a fly-in, over bearing FAA, how dare they, etc., etc.

One of the experimental exhibition judges went and talked to the FAA guys to get the story. The FAA replied that they wre not doing ramp checks. At the same time, they couldn't ignore what might be a blatant violation. In one case, the numbers were so close to the main paint scheme as to be invisible from 10' away.

I'm not a big fan of the FAA but they apparently only called the possible offenders in to give them a verbal notice. No paperwork was asked for, no checking of licenses, certificates, medicals, etc. Nothing written up.

No one likes to be called out, but this seems pretty reasonable to me.

Tom H.

Thanks for weighing in, Tom. It has been my personal experience that the majority of the FAA guys are just trying to do a good job. Don't get me wrong, I despise the over bearing jackbooted approach taken with sleep apnea, stonewalling on the self-certify medical and some of the other issues pushed down from the top teir.
I also had heard that ramp checks were not to be done at fly-ins and if was happening it is very concerning and detrimental to struggling general aviation. I thought I remembered that someone had once posted a link to an inspector's handbook that pointed this fact out, but I have been unable to find the reference.
Although I have large numbers on my airplane, I fail to see how the small numbers make much difference in the scheme of things. However, deliberately camoflaging #'s is asking for trouble. My humble opinion, only!
 
Fact

Tuesday the plane with the "contrast problems" was a 2013 Oshkosh Bronze Lindy winner, at S-N-F to be judged. Paperwork was generated three copies with carbon signed buy two FAA folks, with an invite to see them! Next day the Rockets got the same treatment, these were also VERY nicely built and maintained craft. I know all the planes and pilots personally and have seen the paperwork, NO JOKE!
 
I can see both sides of this. Much of the experimental market ignores the regs and then expects no enforcement. I have a buddy whose N numbers are a long way from legal and he knows it. Would he be up in arms if the reg was enforced? I very much doubt it.

I have a problem with the FAA using flyins as a revenue generator but if the violation is blatant and obvious...they have the obligation to enforce so that the multitude of builders walking past that plane don't emulate it. As for the builders that get offended by it, you're a manufacturer who broke federal rules that you signed your name to follow. Mea Culpa and fix it.
 
I looked at ALL of the 2013 Osh winners (not just Bronze) and didn't see any that had questionable (IMO) N numbers as far as size or 'contrast'. So, a little clarification on this 'FACT' would be appreciated. I looked twice but perhaps I missed it :rolleyes:.

In addition, although I didn't feel it was an 'issue' I called a few FSDO's about the 3" numbers before placing them on my F1 Rocket. I did this because I was airbrushing my placards and wanted to cover my bases in case someone saw things differently than I did. We discussed size, location, font, speed, regs, etc. There were no bumps in the road and I happily placed the number on my plane.

Also, I don't think folks are 'stubborn' as another poster pointed out but rather, (in my case) I thought the smaller numbers were more complimentary to my paint scheme....nothing more nothing less :). I will add that I had one unknown passerby at an airshow tell me that my 'G' wasn't 'allowed' but he moved on after I politely replied :).

I also discussed my 'experimental' placard size, location, and font with the FSDO's and was given the green light as seen in the photo below.

Of course, YMMV :eek:











Tuesday the plane with the "contrast problems" was a 2013 Oshkosh Bronze Lindy winner, at S-N-F to be judged. Paperwork was generated three copies with carbon signed buy two FAA folks, with an invite to see them! Next day the Rockets got the same treatment, these were also VERY nicely built and maintained craft. I know all the planes and pilots personally and have seen the paperwork, NO JOKE!
 
Rick, beautiful airplane.

Did you get the local FSDO blessing in writing?? Would be great to have the letter to hand to the field guy who questions things.
 
Rick, beautiful airplane.

Did you get the local FSDO blessing in writing?? Would be great to have the letter to hand to the field guy who questions things.

Would that really matter? I have heard more than one story about FSDO's providing conflicting information.
 
Would that really matter? I have heard more than one story about FSDO's providing conflicting information.

Absolutely - and it can get ugly! Years ago, in my Grumman days, I installed a set of long range tanks sold by a fellow in Texas in my Yankee. He had sold a few dozen sets, and there were quite a few flying, approved via 337's by IA's and the local FSDO's. the Houston FSDO not only rejected my 337, but demanded the names and addresses of the other customers from the tank builder, then sent pink slips to all of those owners, grounding their airplanes - despite that they had signed off 337's from their local FSDO's! It was finally sorted out about a year later when the tank builder spent the money to get a multi-STC.

The moral is that yes, you can go FSDO shopping and eventually get a favorable ruling on just about anything, but this may not protect you from enforcement action if another FSDO decides to interpret things differently. You can be "in the right" and still spend a lot of time, money and effort defending yourself.

Choose wisely....
 
I'll have to agree with Bill and Paul here.

We all know 'someone' that has made a dozen inquiries (pick ANY topic :)) until they get the answer they want. For my choice of N number font, size, location, etc, I simply contacted a few FSDO's who ALL agreed I was good to go and no issue with my FAA inspection.....no exceptions. At the time this was 'OK' with me, and no, I didn't have it in writing......not that it would help.....as noted. I'd be interested in knowing if my Rocket was on the 'hit list' at Sun 'n Fun :eek:.

I've also seen more than one FAA inspector break out a ruler and measure an N number. To avoid any 'confusion' I always make my numbers 1 1/8" tall.

The above said I DO agree that it only takes one person to ruin your day. In retrospect I don't think I'd airbrush any more N numbers not only for the reasons being discussed here but also in the event of a sale it enables the new owner to easily change the number to another of his/her choice. I currently have a little RV7 that has the N number painted exactly where my Rocket one was, I'd like to change it (the number not the location) but don't 'feel like' repainting so it will stay as is. I'll just sell the plane instead :).

Would that really matter? I have heard more than one story about FSDO's providing conflicting information.

Absolutely - and it can get ugly!

The moral is that yes, you can go FSDO shopping and eventually get a favorable ruling on just about anything, but this may not protect you from enforcement action if another FSDO decides to interpret things differently. You can be "in the right" and still spend a lot of time, money and effort defending yourself.

Choose wisely....
 
Last edited:
I got a fix it ticket last week in my truck because I didn't have a front license plate. I don't like how it looks so I didn't put it on. After the ticket, i put it on, got it checked, then went home and took it off. Problem solved until next time a trooper pulls me over. Everyone is happy. Maybe an extra set of vinyl "legal" numbers in the baggage area solves the issue.
 
As far as shopping for FSDOs to get the answer you want, you need to know that a FAA inspector does NOT have the authority to override FARs.

The interpretation/decision is made in Washington and handed down to inspectors. So even if you get an inspector to give you something in writing (good luck with that), it still doesn't get you off the hook.
 
Last edited:
"maximum cruising speeed"

As to the "maximum cruising speed" in question:

It appears that Vno is a speed governed by FAA PArt 23.1 that does not include "experiemental:"

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart A—General

§23.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and changes to those certificates, for airplanes in the normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter categories.

(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 for such a certificate or change must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this part.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 23-34, 52 FR 1825, Jan. 15, 1987]

***************************8

This section defines maximum cruising speed, but remember Part 23 does not apply to "Experimental."

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart G—Operating Limitations and Information

§23.1505 Airspeed limitations.

(a) The never-exceed speed VNE must be established so that it is—

(1) Not less than 0.9 times the minimum value of VD allowed under §23.335; and

(2) Not more than the lesser of—

(i) 0.9 VD established under §23.335; or

(ii) 0.9 times the maximum speed shown under §23.251.

(b) The maximum structural cruising speed VNO must be established so that it is—

(1) Not less than the minimum value of VC allowed under §23.335; and

(2) Not more than the lesser of—

(i) VC established under §23.335; or

(ii) 0.89 VNE established under paragraph (a) of this section.

(c)(1) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to turbine airplanes or to airplanes for which a design diving speed VD/MD is established under §23.335(b)(4). For those airplanes, a maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) must be established as a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent) unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations.

(2) VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC/MC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD, or VDF/MDF for jets, and the maximum speed shown under §23.251 to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations.

(3) The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD, or VDF/MDF for jets, may not be less than that determined under §23.335(b), or the speed margin found necessary in the flight tests conducted under §23.253.

[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 23-7, 34 FR 13096, Aug. 13, 1969; Amdt. 23-62, 76 FR 75762, Dec. 2, 2011]

************************************************

continuing the search into EXPERIMENTAL
 
Last edited:
In some references max cruise speed = Vh which by Part 1 is maximum continuous power level flight.

Don't know if that is the Part 45 intent.
 
Hint: It was an SX 300. I think he just won g-champion for S-N-F 2014

Ahhh, gotcha.....I remember Judging this plane at Oshkosh last year....very nice :). Since this is an 'RV' site I only looked at the 'RVs' that won awards.

That said....'N numbers' are 'N numbers' so I'm posting a pic of the plane so folks here can understand what the FAA at Sun 'n Fun deemed as "contrast problems" (as quoted in previous post). I didn't look up what the rules are regarding 'contrast' but I'm sure someone with more time on their hands will do it for us :rolleyes:.

Personally, I can see the number quite clearly but evidently others (with ID badges) view things differently.....as has been discussed. Matter of fact the 'N number' is a lot clearer to me than the little yellow RV under the spinner ;).

 
Last time I looked at AC45 2D it specified 'cruising speed' as the normal cruising speed of the ship at a normal cruising power setting at a normal cruising altitude. I see it only says 'cruising speed' now.

I find reference (FAR 45.29) to the max speed for 3" numbers as 180KT CAS, which is an indicated number. No power setting is specified. I know of no Rocketeers who can say (truthfully) that their Rocket will CRUISE in excess of 180KT CAS, tho it will SPRINT to that number.

If they want to infer that cruising speed is a TAS number, then they COULD have a point, but they would not be following the regs, as written.

If you know of anyone having a problem at SnF with this issue, have 'em contact me.

Carry on!
Mark

20" @ 2200 RPM sport wing
IMG_3758.jpg

http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc367/F1R76/IMG_3758.jpg
 
Back
Top