@TXFlyGuy, may I be direct (and hopefully respectful, factual, and utterly above board
vis-a-vis the HBA code of conduct)?
You have started a series of threads related to your own project which were not entirely forthcoming with the facts in the original post, only revealing some relevant facts after a number posts. Some posts were shrouded in the term "hypothetical," although it became clear later they were not hypothetical at all, but quite real. Under those circumstances, it's hard to tell the difference between an actual situation, and one that may soon become rendered completely different based on a forthcoming post, reporting more facts or damage to your airplane. I don't relish those revelations (and I'm sure nobody does) but they tend to undermine credibility.
Right or wrong, many folks will feel manipulated if they are asked for an opinion when it is later revealed that relevant facts were concealed.
In the posts regarding your own project--which is beautiful, and I wish you the best success, and I believe you will achieve it because you are determined in the best sense of the word--there have been a number of red flags suggesting it was not built in the majority by amateurs. Recently, some statements have seemed to suggest an artificial distinction between "manufacturer" and "owner," which in the E-AB world, are unequivocally one and the same. From an outside perspective, it reads like one--though with extensive experience in the world of professional aviation--is engaging experimental aviation with a "consumer" mentality. Alongside this perception of a consumer approach, the threads regarding the regrettable current situation with your aircraft have suggested a search for avenues to assign responsibility to the "manufacturer" (presumably the kit maker?), mechanics, or test pilots, perhaps with intent to recover damages from, or at the least exact some (legitimate) repercussions against, those who have maintained or flown your aircraft in a manner contrary to FARs.
Right or wrong, that probably doesn't sit well with the grass-roots EAB crowd.
Now, in view of the two points above, please consider that this thread about a friend--given 1) the lack of detail provided initially, and 2) the suggestion of exploring how the "A&P" in question might be penalized--might be greeted with some skepticism.
Granting that this particular situation is indeed about a friend's RV-8, and not your own situation, several people said very early in this thread that an attorney or FSDO could clear this up in short order. Then, in post number
one hundred and forty-two (one hundred and forty-two!) others are taken to task for offering opinions without consulting the FAA, as you now have. Respectfully, please consider how this comes across.
I do look forward to hearing of your success with the T-51 and I hope that your RV-8-owner friend will not be needlessly encumbered by the fraudulent entry.