How long can you reserve an N-number?

[Carl Orton]

If one wanted to reserve a unique N-number while they were building a plane,
how long can you keep renewing the reservation (understanding you'd have to
pay a fee each time)?

I thought it was for only a year or so, but faa.gov makes it sound like you
can renew at least once, but didn't see an upper limit on the number of
times.

Anyone know for sure?

Thanks;
Carl

[quietguy]

I know a guy who reserved a number for twelve years before his
airplane flew; just keep paying the fee. Your state may contact you
if they register/tax aircraft, but every such state I know of exempts
homebuilts under construction; they'll require you to contact the
state office within a certain period after the FAA issues the
airworthiness certificate. (Save all parts/materials receipts to
establish the tax basis or registration fee. Some states also factor
in your labor hours -- at some pitifully small rate -- so you may have
to show building-time records, too.)

[Ron Natalie]

Carl Orton wrote:
> If one wanted to reserve a unique N-number while they were building a plane,
> how long can you keep renewing the reservation (understanding you'd have to
> pay a fee each time)?
>
> I thought it was for only a year or so, but faa.gov makes it sound like you
> can renew at least once, but didn't see an upper limit on the number of
> times.
>

You can keep renewing it as long as you keep sending them the fee.

I finally stopped renewing N1RN and some glider out in Ohio grabbed it.


>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Carl Orton wrote:
> If one wanted to reserve a unique N-number while they were building a
> plane, how long can you keep renewing the reservation (understanding
> you'd have to pay a fee each time)?
>
> I thought it was for only a year or so, but faa.gov makes it sound
> like you can renew at least once, but didn't see an upper limit on
> the number of times.
>
> Anyone know for sure?
>
> Thanks;
> Carl

There isn't a limit as long as you renew and pay the $10 each year. I first
renewed mine in Oct 2002.

[IO540]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:17:52 -0800 (PST), quietguy
> wrote:

>I know a guy who reserved a number for twelve years before his
>airplane flew; just keep paying the fee. Your state may contact you
>if they register/tax aircraft, but every such state I know of exempts
>homebuilts under construction; they'll require you to contact the
>state office within a certain period after the FAA issues the
>airworthiness certificate. (Save all parts/materials receipts to
>establish the tax basis or registration fee. Some states also factor
>in your labor hours -- at some pitifully small rate -- so you may have
>to show building-time records, too.)


Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees? I'm holding
one, but if they raise the fee up from $10 to $50 a year, I may just
go ahead and register my unfinished homebuilt and then deal with the
state, who will most certianly come after me for personal property
tax. Homebuilts, especially ones that are unique, the state has a hard
time establishing a value for, so they came to me and asked what is
was worth for the one I have that's finished and flying.

[quietguy]

On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, IO540 > wrote:
>
> Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
> to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees?

It was part of the FAA's reauthorization/restructuring proposal, which
got shot down by Congress this fall:

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2007/feat0705.html

Look about two-thirds of the way through the AOPA article (from May
2007) and you'll see the proposals: $80 to register a 'special' N-
number (i.e., one not assigned at random) and $50 to renew it. Shot
down with all the rest -- but soaking us for 'vanity plates' is
clearly on their minds at the FAA. It's unclear from the AOPA's
wording but it looks as if the FAA wanted to hit us up for these fees
every year for existing aircraft as well as for reserved N-numbers.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:59:08 -0500, IO540 >
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:17:52 -0800 (PST), quietguy
> wrote:
>
>>I know a guy who reserved a number for twelve years before his
>>airplane flew; just keep paying the fee. Your state may contact you
>>if they register/tax aircraft, but every such state I know of exempts
>>homebuilts under construction; they'll require you to contact the
>>state office within a certain period after the FAA issues the
>>airworthiness certificate. (Save all parts/materials receipts to
>>establish the tax basis or registration fee. Some states also factor
>>in your labor hours -- at some pitifully small rate -- so you may have
>>to show building-time records, too.)
>
>
>Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
>to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees? I'm holding
>one, but if they raise the fee up from $10 to $50 a year, I may just
>go ahead and register my unfinished homebuilt and then deal with the

Cars and airplanes in Michigan are not considered taxable as personal
property, but we do have to pay sales tax on the value/investment.
That often brings up the argument as to what the plane is really worth
compared to what you have invested in it.

I'd gladly register mine at $1.00 per hundred weight, or about $25 a
year versus 6% of the value at registration time. In a well equipped
Glasair III that could easily vary from a few thousand to over ten
thousand dollars. Figuring what I have in it at present: Kit price
(used but still in the crate), engine K1A5 IO-540, Prop (Hartzel 3
Blade like new with very little time on it) not counting labor would
save me one whale of a lot of money.

Thing is, this state's finances have been really screwed up by the
current and past parties in power. So it they argue your well crafted
bug smasher is worth $100,000 and you have $50,000 in it you may have
a very difficult time getting them to budge and they don't care how
many appraisals you have as they'll do their own.

I think it was this past year one of the locals flew down south to
purchase a plane at a really good deal (to top it off the plane was in
very good shape too). The state refused to accept the bill of sale as
the actual value as it was not typical of that make and model for that
year. So he ended up paying close tax on close to double what he
really paid for the plane.

>state, who will most certianly come after me for personal property
>tax. Homebuilts, especially ones that are unique, the state has a hard
>time establishing a value for, so they came to me and asked what is
>was worth for the one I have that's finished and flying.

It doesn't help when they can go to Trade-a-plane and find asking
prices up in the stratosphere for similar planes and with my luck
they'd find one that was a prize winner at Oshkosh worth twice mine.

Roger (K8RI)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, IO540 > wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
>> to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees?
>
>It was part of the FAA's reauthorization/restructuring proposal, which
>got shot down by Congress this fall:

Yah, but today the AOPA said the administration is still pushing for
User fees and those would probably fall right in with these.

Roger (K8RI)
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2007/feat0705.html
>
>Look about two-thirds of the way through the AOPA article (from May
>2007) and you'll see the proposals: $80 to register a 'special' N-
>number (i.e., one not assigned at random) and $50 to renew it. Shot
>down with all the rest -- but soaking us for 'vanity plates' is
>clearly on their minds at the FAA. It's unclear from the AOPA's
>wording but it looks as if the FAA wanted to hit us up for these fees
>every year for existing aircraft as well as for reserved N-numbers.

[IO-540]

>
>It doesn't help when they can go to Trade-a-plane and find asking
>prices up in the stratosphere for similar planes and with my luck
>they'd find one that was a prize winner at Oshkosh worth twice mine.
>
>Roger (K8RI)

I'm building a Glasair 3 myself, and tactic I've seen used by a lot of
homebuilders is to not name the aircraft what the kit maker calls it.
Being the builder, and building 51% or more of it, you are free to
name it anything you want to call it. Calling it a Glasair just helps
the state out in figuring out what it's worth. I guess I'm lucky in
that in my state, they don't actually go out and inspect a homebuilt
at the airport, Mich. sounds a lot more agressive in that area. But we
pay a yearly personal property tax on cars and planes, boats, ect..
And I've heard is the 3rd highest in the country for PPT. (SC).
Homebuilts aren't so easy to set a value on, and states that go after
them for tax money are especially greedy. Some builders never plan to
sell them for fear of liability, so in those cases, the resale is hard
to put a value on.
RAM

[IO-540]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, IO540 > wrote:
>>
>> Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
>> to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees?
>
>It was part of the FAA's reauthorization/restructuring proposal, which
>got shot down by Congress this fall:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2007/feat0705.html
>
>Look about two-thirds of the way through the AOPA article (from May
>2007) and you'll see the proposals: $80 to register a 'special' N-
>number (i.e., one not assigned at random) and $50 to renew it. Shot
>down with all the rest -- but soaking us for 'vanity plates' is
>clearly on their minds at the FAA. It's unclear from the AOPA's
>wording but it looks as if the FAA wanted to hit us up for these fees
>every year for existing aircraft as well as for reserved N-numbers.

Every year? that would be awful, and just put another nail in the
coffin for GA. The FAA is persistant, that's for sure. The B-crats
just can't get the thought from their mind that anyone who owns an
aircarft is rich, and is a prime target for taxes for them to waste on
many of their useless programs.

[tortilini]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:09:08 -0800, Richard Riley > wrote:


>
>An owner who goes that way should also list the engine as
>experimental. A Cozy builder locally listed his airplane as a Jones
>Runabout or some such, but listed the Lycoming 360 engine. The
>assessor said the last plane they'd billed with that kind of engine
>was a new Cessna 172, therefor the homebuilt was worth as much as the
>Cessna - $250k.

That's a good tip. I would have never thought of the engine being a tax target.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

IO-540 wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, IO540 > wrote:
>>>
>>> Wasn't that fee to hold an "N" number one of the ones they are going
>>> to raise up quite a bit with the new registration fees?
>>
>> It was part of the FAA's reauthorization/restructuring proposal,
>> which got shot down by Congress this fall:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/2007/feat0705.html
>>
>> Look about two-thirds of the way through the AOPA article (from May
>> 2007) and you'll see the proposals: $80 to register a 'special' N-
>> number (i.e., one not assigned at random) and $50 to renew it. Shot
>> down with all the rest -- but soaking us for 'vanity plates' is
>> clearly on their minds at the FAA. It's unclear from the AOPA's
>> wording but it looks as if the FAA wanted to hit us up for these fees
>> every year for existing aircraft as well as for reserved N-numbers.
>
> Every year? that would be awful, and just put another nail in the
> coffin for GA. The FAA is persistant, that's for sure. The B-crats
> just can't get the thought from their mind that anyone who owns an
> aircarft is rich, and is a prime target for taxes for them to waste on
> many of their useless programs.

Well getting special N numbers is kind of like vanity plates for cars. It's
not like you really need them.

[IO-540]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:31:57 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>IO-540 wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
>> > wrote:

>
>Well getting special N numbers is kind of like vanity plates for cars. It's
>not like you really need them.
>

Well, in a homebuilt, yes you really do. Considering the size of some
homebuilts, putting a long N number on can be a challenge. And the FAA
issues long, non-descript N numbers. There are no short N numbers
left. The best that can be had is two numbers plus two letters, or 3
numbers and one letter, or 4 numbers and no letters. If someone is
building a plane that requires a 12" N numbers, due to it's cruise
speed, fitting a long number along the side can be tough, especially
if it interferes with a nice paint scheme. I'd like a short enough
number to fit on the rudder, but there are none available.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

IO-540 wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:31:57 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> IO-540 wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
>>> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Well getting special N numbers is kind of like vanity plates for
>> cars. It's not like you really need them.
>>
>
> Well, in a homebuilt, yes you really do. Considering the size of some
> homebuilts, putting a long N number on can be a challenge. And the FAA
> issues long, non-descript N numbers. There are no short N numbers
> left. The best that can be had is two numbers plus two letters, or 3
> numbers and one letter, or 4 numbers and no letters. If someone is
> building a plane that requires a 12" N numbers, due to it's cruise
> speed, fitting a long number along the side can be tough, especially
> if it interferes with a nice paint scheme. I'd like a short enough
> number to fit on the rudder, but there are none available.

I doubt a $80 fee is going to be the tipping point especially if you are
building an aircraft that that flys fast enough to require 12" letters.

[Wayne Paul]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> IO-540 wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:31:57 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>
>> Well, in a homebuilt, yes you really do. Considering the size of some
>> homebuilts, putting a long N number on can be a challenge. And the FAA
>> issues long, non-descript N numbers. There are no short N numbers
>> left. The best that can be had is two numbers plus two letters, or 3
>> numbers and one letter, or 4 numbers and no letters. If someone is
>> building a plane that requires a 12" N numbers, due to it's cruise
>> speed, fitting a long number along the side can be tough, especially
>> if it interferes with a nice paint scheme. I'd like a short enough
>> number to fit on the rudder, but there are none available.
>
> I doubt a $80 fee is going to be the tipping point especially if you are
> building an aircraft that that flys fast enough to require 12" letters.

In the near future I am going to refinish my fuselage. What are the current
N-number size requirements?

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
> In the near future I am going to refinish my fuselage. What are the
> current N-number size requirements?

Depends on your fuselage.

Rich "Insufficient information, Mr. Spock" S.

[Wayne Paul]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In the near future I am going to refinish my fuselage. What are the
>> current N-number size requirements?
>
> Depends on your fuselage.
>
> Rich "Insufficient information, Mr. Spock" S.

OK, I see RVs with 4 inch number and some with 14 inch numbers. There must
be a rule that state a "requirement." I am looking for the rule's
reference, or a paraphrase of the rule.

[Wayne Paul]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In the near future I am going to refinish my fuselage. What are the
>>> current N-number size requirements?
>>
>> Depends on your fuselage.
>>
>> Rich "Insufficient information, Mr. Spock" S.
>
> OK, I see RVs with 4 inch number and some with 14 inch numbers. There
> must be a rule that state a "requirement." I am looking for the rule's
> reference, or a paraphrase of the rule.
>
No need to reply. I found the answer.
http://www.aircraftcolor.com/ninfo.asp

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote >>
> No need to reply. I found the answer.
> http://www.aircraftcolor.com/ninfo.asp

It should be added that planes arriving back home from an international
flight are required to have 12 inch numbers, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote >>
>> No need to reply. I found the answer.
>> http://www.aircraftcolor.com/ninfo.asp
>
> It should be added that planes arriving back home from an international
> flight are required to have 12 inch numbers, too.

Plus aircraft of a certain age, or which are built to resemble aircraft of a
certain age, if they put an "X" in their number, may have two inch numbers.
There are many chapters and verse which apply.

Rich "The rest of the story" S.

[IO540[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:11:49 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

>IO-540 wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:31:57 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> IO-540 wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:41:02 -0800 (PST), quietguy
>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well getting special N numbers is kind of like vanity plates for
>>> cars. It's not like you really need them.
>>>
>>
>> Well, in a homebuilt, yes you really do. Considering the size of some
>> homebuilts, putting a long N number on can be a challenge. And the FAA
>> issues long, non-descript N numbers. There are no short N numbers
>> left. The best that can be had is two numbers plus two letters, or 3
>> numbers and one letter, or 4 numbers and no letters. If someone is
>> building a plane that requires a 12" N numbers, due to it's cruise
>> speed, fitting a long number along the side can be tough, especially
>> if it interferes with a nice paint scheme. I'd like a short enough
>> number to fit on the rudder, but there are none available.
>
>I doubt a $80 fee is going to be the tipping point especially if you are
>building an aircraft that that flys fast enough to require 12" letters.
>

It's a Glasair 3, but I don't like spending $80 anymore than the next
guy to a government agency, that is already getting enough in tax
revenue. Some of which is held hostage in the aviation trust fund.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com