Silvaire wrote:
So no, parts will not be a problem and nobody will scrap anything. Somebody will rise to the challenge
Not a problem of any kind, but there are probably not enough Evolutions around for people to start making a small parts business out of it, like there is for Cubs for instance, and many other aircraft.
Silvaire wrote:
…then we find somebody who knows how to make things using those drawings or tooling…
The problem is not to find someone who can manufacture the parts for you, but the underlying design flaw. In case of a windshield blowing out at 25.000ft replacing the windshield with something that your hangar buddy crufts together for you will not solve anything. Would you take up your family at night into bad weather again in a plane where something like this can happen again any time again? This is why aircraft like that eventually end up in a museum.
I agree with @what_next, this type of airplane should not be built under the experimental provisions. The consequences of component failure are too severe. With normal low end experimentals, you just land and figure out what went wrong. With this one at high altitudes and in IMC, you often won’t get the chance. With their pseudo-builder program, customers get the impression they buy an aircraft that is like any new aircraft, possibly even better.
Somebody should certify a lean and mean pressurized rocket like the Evolution. Maybe a Cirrus turboprop?
what_next wrote:
The problem is not to find someone who can manufacture the parts for you, but the underlying design flaw
Well, you don’t know if it was a design flaw, or if it was caused by poor workmanship, or something else, some flaw in the wind shield material for instance.
Ultimately this debate comes down to your view of “the land of personal freedom” (the USA) versus “we know what is best for you” (Europe). Loosely speaking, of course.
LeSving wrote:
Well, you don’t know if it was a design flaw, or if it was caused by poor workmanship, or something else, some flaw in the wind shield material for instance.
No. And because it is not a certified aircraft nobody will find that out for me. So I insall a new windshield and I am at the same point as before. I would not trust this machine ever again.
Other than for certified ones where the authorities will take care of those issues, investigate, and have either the manufacturer or the maintenance network come up with a solution that will fix the underlying problem.
Peter wrote:
Ultimately this debate comes down to your view of “the land of personal freedom” (the USA) versus “we know what is best for you” (Europe). Loosely speaking, of course.
I don’t see it that way. The US certification system is as strict as the European one (or even more strict, e.g. regarding the Cessna 162) and Europesn homebuilding legislation is not any stricter than the US, apart maybe from the IFR certification. I see this rather personal – you either value your life and that of your family/friends highly or you don’t.
what_next wrote:
I see this rather personal – you either value your life and that of your family/friends highly or you don’t.
Me too, but arguing the other way around. In the non-certified world you don’t have to rely on the certified (and prohibitive expensive) scrap, but rather can choose what suits best for the purpose. E.g. I’ve rather chosen a LiFePo batterie than one of those, that were installed in the B787 – just for safety reasons 
Obviously what you do is redesign anything you don’t like about your Experimental homebuilt, finding people who are qualified to do so if you aren’t. The whole point of FAA E-AB is that you are the manufacturer, and as such the design is yours to create or modify – whether by you or somebody else. There is no design certification, and the results good or bad are yours to create.
Silvaire wrote:
Obviously what you do is redesign anything …
Yes. But if at the time of building (or “building” as in this case) the major design flaws are not yet discovered or publicised there is not much you can do in terms of redesign. And once large parts of composites have been joined together there is not much room left for modifications either. One can not just drill out a few rivets and insert a part of stronger alloy. If you discover that the composite hull of your plane can not withstand the strain at maximum differential pressure the only thing you can do is throw it away. Or fly unpressurised. Or be quiet about it and sell the plane on as quick as you can.
Tthere is plenty of scope for redesigning and modifying composite structures after they are built. If a pressurized windshield design has proven to be unreliable (which I believe is what_next’s example) you redesign and rebuild the structure to prevent it, at least that’s what I’d do. If you’re at the level of building a pressurized homebuilt you need to develop resources to support its development. That’s life.
