Marking Antique Aircraft (our 170s)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I'm now faced with repainting the registration marks on my "49 170 which falls into the antique categoryas an aircraft made over 30 years ago and before 1981.

It seems to me that FAR 45.22 (b) says that any aircraft over 30 years old can display 2" high registration marks in accordance with 45.21(c) and pretty much disregard the rest which includes the placement in 45.25.

So unless I'm missing something we can place 2" registration marks anywhere we want on our aircraft without placement restriction.

How do the rest of you see it?

[bagarre]

I've recently dug thru all of this 'cuz someone gave me grief about having my numbers on the wings (and the 2" numbers on the tail)

.. least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface ...

Yes, that's the way I read it too. It almost takes a logic tree to figure out this section of the FAR.

Also, FYI the DC SFRA is NOT an ADIZ nor DEWIZ. It is an SFRA and you are not required to paste on 12" numbers to fly there.

[GAHorn]

I'm now faced with repainting the registration marks on my "49 170 which falls into the antique categoryas an aircraft made over 30 years ago and before 1981.

It seems to me that FAR 45.22 (b) says that any aircraft over 30 years old can display 2" high registration marks in accordance with 45.21(c) and pretty much disregard the rest which includes the placement in 45.25.

So unless I'm missing something we can place 2" registration marks anywhere we want on our aircraft without placement restriction.

How do the rest of you see it?

NOt sure what you mean by that last statement....but.... if you use 2" numbers, they must be on a vertical surface (such as the vert. stab) and they must be in horizontal order. You may not place them "anywhere we want on our aircraft without placement restriction."

Also, the border betwen U.S. and Canada is not an ADIZ....but Mexico is, as is most of the Caribbean.

(Sounds as if you've moved beyond the cabin-roof...)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The statement "without restriction" was meant that the mark coudl be horizontal on a vertical serface anywhere, not just behind the wing and in front of the stabilizer (45.25) when place the fuselage. For example it could be under the stabilizer or on the side of the front cowl.

Yes we have removed the rear wing to fuselage fairings to clean and protect that forgotten area under them as well as remove the paint from the outside. A new paint scheme is coming together and as long as the weather stays warm enough to work we will probably continue stripping paint.

[3958v]

I really love the 12" numbers required on the side for the ADIZ. I have 24" numbers on my wings top and bottom and any fighter pilot that cant figure out my registration needs to be removed from service. I can't see why 12" or larger numbers on the wings aren't leagal too. Bill K

[hilltop170]

N-numbers on the wings are legal as long as you have the SAME number applied correctly on a vertical surface.

[GAHorn]

The statement "without restriction" was meant that the mark coudl be horizontal on a vertical serface anywhere, not just behind the wing and in front of the stabilizer (45.25) when place the fuselage. For example it could be under the stabilizer or on the side of the front cowl.....

I think that 45.22 (b)(1) requires it to be on the vertical tail or fuselage. I suspect that an engine cowl does not meet that requirement. For example, 45.22(b1)() states that the rule pertaining to location requirements (45.25) does not apply ...."if" ...."It displays in accordance ... marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail ....."

I don't see any other location approved.

Bill: I have the 20" numbers under/over my wings also (in accordance with practices during the early 1950's before ICAO rules were standardized world-wide) and I once wondered what the problem was with that location myself.
I was finally enlightened when it was pointed out that: 1- many/mostforeign aircraft use roman-letters only, which 2- are difficult to decipher when passing-by overhead, due to the momentary "obversal" of the letters as the aircraft passes. In other words, a "N" and a "Z", or an "A" and a "V" or "Y", or "L" and "T", .....etc., become easily confused, and the specific purpose of large registration numbers was thereby obliterated.
(It may look pretty simple while it sits still on the ramp or in the hangar, but even at 100 kts it can be difficult while it buzzes past/coming-then-going the city-hall at 200 feet.)

(As Richard points out), I think the rule prohibiting any other numbers beginning with "N" on the aircraft does not apply to non-vertical surfaces. The 20" numbers on the wings are allowable merely as decoration/paint-scheme....but not as any required registration numbering system.

[hilltop170]

N-numbers on the wings are legal as long as you have the SAME number applied correctly on a vertical surface.

(As Richard points out), I think the rule prohibiting any other numbers beginning with "N" on the aircraft does not apply to non-vertical surfaces. The 20" numbers on the wings are allowable merely as decoration/paint-scheme....but not as any required registration numbering system.

45.22 (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.

(b)(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............

[GAHorn]

N-numbers on the wings are legal as long as you have the SAME number applied correctly on a vertical surface.

(As Richard points out), I think the rule prohibiting any other numbers beginning with "N" on the aircraft does not apply to non-vertical surfaces. The 20" numbers on the wings are allowable merely as decoration/paint-scheme....but not as any required registration numbering system.

45.22 (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.

(b)(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............

Yeah. That.

[bagarre]

I can see a real passive aggressive jerk try to say that, since they are not the same size, they are not the same markings. (Go FAA)

It's been mentioned to me so many times, I should keep a copy of that in my plane.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

George, I consider the side of the engine cowl part of the side of the fuselage. I can also understand the view that it is not.

I'm not considering the cowl but might consider under the horizontal stabilizer which is where war birds put it.

[HA]

Bruce, I'd personally also ask my paint shop as they would know every location that's been tried I'm sure and what can/can't be done.

I think I'd leave the N# visible on the tail, just because on our airplanes the N# is kind of the identity of the airplane. On warbirds, the N# clashes with the identity that they're trying to portray which is why they'd want to hide it a bit. but of course opinions are like bungholes, everyone has one.

[bagarre]

[quote="HA" On warbirds, the N# clashes with the identity that they're trying to portray which is why they'd want to hide it a bit.[/quote]

The same argument can be made for any old airplane that wants to look original.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bruce, I'd personally also ask my paint shop as they would know every location that's been tried I'm sure and what can/can't be done.

I think I'd leave the N# visible on the tail, just because on our airplanes the N# is kind of the identity of the airplane. On warbirds, the N# clashes with the identity that they're trying to portray which is why they'd want to hide it a bit. but of course opinions are like bungholes, everyone has one.

Well HA, I am the paint shop. As for the N# identifying the plane as a 170 well, that was changed in the second month of it's life to N7A. Doesn't identify it to the 170 line at all.

I'm not adverse to putting N7A on the rudder but it is so small it gets lost. So I was just thinking about other options and like a lot of things, think about exploring the edges of the FARs.

Huh, I could actually fit N7A in 12" letters on the rudder. Now that would be different.

[HA]

you are a brave man, I painted an airplane once and let's just say I'm much better suited to small patch jobs than large areas. on the numbers, you could go all Peter Max on it and make the numbers flow across and fill up the whole side of the plane, that would be cool. who says that all the numbers have to be the same size?

and actually the 12" numbers that all fit on the rudder, or vertical fin and rudder look great, we have a few planes that are like that