I raised this in another thread -- which got a bit buried -- so I would like to ask the question again in a thread of it's own.When the FSD Navajo came out , there was much talk about it's flight damage modelling. Supposedly, if you flew it incorrectly -- engine settings, etc -- it would "break". However , I also noted lots of complaints about it and could never work out whether the model was working correctly and people were just not reading the a/c documentation -- or whether the a/c model itself had problems . Next minute - out came an "update" and now there seems to be no mention of this feature at all anywhere . I read a recent comprehensive review of the a/c and it made no mention of the damage modelling or the need to fly the a/c correctly.Now , in this other thread, FSD has said that the damage modelling is still there - but the update provided a setting which allows you to turn it on or off. A customer replied and disagreed with that and claimed that the latest version of the a/c has no damage modelling .SO -- what is the situation?? I would like to purchase another payware a/c and am looking at the Flight1 Meridian -- it would make a nice stepup from the Cessna 310 -- but if the Navajo had good damage modelling, I would probably get that to improve my flying skills.Anybody?Thanks Barry

Barry,I do own the FSD Navajo. I really enjoy flying it an do my very best not to cause any damage to the engines. So far I have been successful. i.e., no damage observed so far (after the updates). Not much of an answer to your question, I know, but I wanted to let you know anyway.Cheers,Henri

Hello Barry, I'm going to reply to this thread as well to keep things orginazed.As a real world commercial pilot, I was thrilled to see an aircraft that incorporates a damaging model, FSD Navajo came out about 5 months ago bringing a new dimansion to the FS experience. The day it came out I inmidiatly bought the product and did several patterns at my local airport after reading the checklists and manual. Those first flights came out perfectly, but I wasn't following the checklist perfectly, I remember I was running the engines well in the green arcs to avoid any damage, after going deeper into the checklist and finding the suggested engine settings for cruise climb and cruise, I quickly noticed that the engines will fail. Several users claim the same situation and FSD issued a patch several weeks after the first release. Before this patch, I enjoyed flying the Navajo following "my" setting and not FSD's checklist and I gotta tell you Barry, it was a great new experince to feel that you have to be really careful with those virtual and expensive machines. After the patch, the story is different.Today's Navajo shares the same old features as the original one but is my beleive that the damaging model has been disabled, as I mentioned in my other post in this subject, I've been flying the airplane like crazy -on porpouse- just to test the damaging model and so far the engines work flawlesly. After my other post, I double checked the my Navajo Load Manager to see how many hours I've put on those engines since I reset the timer the last time and both engines have ~17 hours each, this 17 hours has been flown following the complete oposite suggestion you can find in any aviation book that talks about mechanics and engine handling, but, once again, the engines won't fail. It's a shame because that feeling of screwing up things is not there anymore.So, what I would like to now as well as Barry, is if some other user of the Navajo has experienced any fail after the patch was issued. Carlos.

Yes, Barry, the damage modelling is still present, and is indeed configurable in the load manager for those who prefer to not incorporate it. The update was created to fix mostly cosmetic issues we were having, but the damage modelling wasn't taken away.Best regards,Owen

Hi,The damamge modelling and oil / CHT temperatures have not worked correctly from day one.Firstly, in release one the oil temperatures would go way to high for the PROPER (as speced in the manual), this lead to the eninges being damaged way to early.In the SR realease the oil temperatures were still way to high for the stated prop and MAP settings, although now the engines would not fail, in fact since the SR I cannot get the engines to fail at all.This leads me to believe it was never fixed, only fudged, I got so fed up with the twoing and froing, and the total distain of the support staff that I gave up on it.This factor, and the overwhelming suspicion of PAYING customers who wish to reinstall their addons by FSD lead me to place FSD with PSS, 2 companies who I will never buy anything from again.Shame,Dan.

>>This factor, and the overwhelming suspicion of PAYING>customers who wish to reinstall their addons by FSD lead me to>place FSD with PSS, 2 companies who I will never buy anything>from again.Well..................... You know how it is! Too many "non-paying" customers that cast suspicion on others. Unfortunately, that's the way this world has become. Same reason too many airports have become "locked up"; as you just can't trust a few..>Shame,>Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame Shame ............Ever notice how many flight sim related postings use the word "Shame"?For some reason, and nothing personal; I alway's laugh! Don't know if everyone is taking this too seriously or not! :-lol L.Adamson

Yes my friend, we do take this a little too seriously sometimes!!!.Again, its the legitimate customers who suffer, whilst the people who these protections are trying to stop continue to merrily pirate addons.The "shame" bit was not for me, but for the companies who are going to lose customers left, right and centre because of this."Same reason too many airports have become "locked up", hmmm, depends what country, I could tell you stories of some of the medical items that I have to have on my person, not even being questioned at security controls.Dan.

"This factor, and the overwhelming suspicion of PAYING customers who wish to reinstall their addons by FSD lead me to place FSD with PSS, 2 companies who I will never buy anything from again."

Funny I have a complete opposite opinion of FSD aircraft. The Navajo is without a doubt the best add-on aircraft I have. I also have the FSD Seneca and FSD Cheyenne and both are top notch. Great aircraft and great customer service.

Can I PLEASE have some more replies from Navajo owners regarding the flight damage modelling -- and less FSD bashing and opinions re piracy. So far -- as far as I can see, the jury is still out as to whether this a/c has the original modelling and whether it works or notThanks Barry

Frankly, it would be at the bottom of my list whether the aicraft had "damage" modeling or not. I simply don't believe anything like that could be even remotely realistic inside FS9. Just my personal opinion.Michael J.

Well FRANKLY -- I also am not remotely interested in what's at the bottom of your list or your opinions.WhatI am looking for is some information and factual accounts of the damage modelling in the Navajo -- modelling which the designers say exists and works.Barry

>WhatI am looking for is some information and factual accounts>of the damage modelling in the Navajo -- modelling which the>designers say exists and works.>In an earlier post, you stated:"I'd like to see some realistic damage modelling -- such that the aircraft have to be flown correctly or they are "damaged" . At the moment, it is too easy to just "blast off" and not observe engine parameters, etc." I think you're trying to find a one size fit's all answer. If I blast off in the simulated Navajo & don't take the time for fine adjustments, the rpm & cht are not that far out of wack to cause immediate engine damage. So who is to say if the engine should be damaged at 17 hours, 500, or even 1800.Lycoming has recommendations for cruise power on their 540's, for what they consider best service life, but not absolute limitations. And it's the same their smaller engines. But yet, in real life, there is quite a variation in the service life. So who is to say, at what point, the engine should fail in a simulated aircraft? I think 1800 Hrs sounds about right. Fly the Navajo for 1800 hours & see if it fails! If it does, the modeling could be right on!!!! :-lol L.Adamson

As I said previously, it has never worked correctly, and has now been "fudged" to solve the problem of the engines failing to quickly.This is not only my opinion, but alot of people I know with this addon are of the same opinion.The ball is in FSD's court as far as I can see, why not post on there forum, I am sure you will get plenty of feedback there.Dan.

Hi Larry,As usual, you correctly state the essence of the matter, which is, the essential unpredictability of mechanical events. You yourself will know, given your background, that an engine can suffer abuse and live until TBO whereas the next engine off the line may fail early although treated the same. Confirming what Owen has stated, damage modelling is enabled and it is probably a lot closer to what it really should be in 'average' real life. We were using too predictable a model in modelling unreliability previously, and believe we have been able to refine how we model it with the benefit of some feedback and user experience. Again contrary to some other comments here, the original release had a decimal point out of place, as delivered, that was demonstrating it (damage) too early. Damage may not happen today, nor may it happen tomorrow, but if the limits are exceeded it will happen as the effects of abuse are cumulative. Lack of maintenance will accelerate onset as may frequent preventative maintenance delay the probability of the event (subject to some conditions). It may accumulate several hundred hours if abused outside parameter envelopes but if a catastrophic failure occurrs it won't necessarily be when the engine is under stress, it won't happen to both ... and when it does it will happen randomly Left or Right. Best,

Hi Guys,My 2 cents. First, why rely on the "other place" for reviews when there is already a "very fair and balanced" review of the Navajo right here at Avsim. I know - because I spent many hours writing the darn thing.About the engines. I am not one to purposely abuse an airplane to see if it'll blow up so I have definately not experienced a failure since the patch. However, as Dan mentioned, the engines would die within minutes after takeoff before the patch - so FSD definately fixed something very important. Did the fix "break" the damage model? I don't know. FSD says they didn't and I'm prepared to take them at their word. Dan is correct that the oil temps still run way too high (haven't noticed anything wrong with the CHTs) and I took that into account in my review. I also agree with Larry, the normal TBO on those engines is around 2000 hours - abuse them and they may croak at 1000 hours, maybe at 400 hours, or maybe at 1999 hours. Until someone puts that kind of time on the airplane, you probably won't get a definative answer.About FSD losing customers over this issue (assuming it really is an issue) - I think that's pretty reckless. The Navajo excels in so many other areas... I think some are losing sight of the forest for the trees.Marc