Several I know don't want anything to do with experimentals so I wonder how many would shy away from something that's had a lot of maintenance accomplished on it by a minimally trained mechanic.
I don't mind inspecting experimentals as long as the airframe construction is with materials and methods I'm familiar with. I need to be familiar with the engines and props, too. I'm getting more familiar with the Rotax's more and more every day.
When we look at an aircraft, we're (IAs) making sure the aircraft and all attached components conform to the type design, and that it is PRESENTLY in an airworthy condition. A minimally trained, non certificated mechanic (owner) has more to lose by doing things wrong than a lot of the supposedly maximally trained, certificated mechanics. The owners may have minimal training, but they're not out there overhauling the engines or replacing the wing spar. They're doing simple (or relatively simple) things. I've never put a mag on wrong that ran right. Starters and alternators are even more fool proof. Get the wiring messed up and it won't work correctly. I'd like to see owners be allowed to do more maintenance. Just like us mechanics, they should do it the first time under supervision, then they own the skill.
That said, we all know tinkerers who have no business tinkering. That would be the only drawback. Kinda like one guy messing it up for everyone.
Different mechanics have different comfort levels with what they'll do and/or sign off. Ask one to go outside that comfort zone and you're asking for trouble.
My two and a half cents...
