> Lou Betti Said:>Our planes / engines are built much better than that! You>should have one as good in your car.>Actually that is not true in the least bit. Most manf. aircraft engines (although the newer breeds are changing) are glorified 1930's tractor engine technology. The only thing they really have going for them is redundancy of some systems. And they have potentially dangerous other ones like vacuum pumps and related instruments.Car engines are well, well advanced in terms of reliability and performance when comparing them to aircraft engines. Things will be changing, but probably not soon enough.Jim Rhoads

>Actually that is not true in the least bit. Most manf.>aircraft engines (although the newer breeds are changing) are>glorified 1930's tractor engine technology. The only thing>they really have going for them is redundancy of some systems.>And they have potentially dangerous other ones like vacuum>pumps and related instruments.FWIW, the majority still much prefer the simplistic "glorified tractor engines". High torque, low rpm without need of prop reduction, no radiators, simple oil/governor system for constant speed props, and not totally dependent on an electrical system. However, with today's glass technology, it's easy to get rid of the vacuum pump, and use backup battery/alternator systems. The vac pump isn't famous for reliability. Using electronic ignition to replace one mag, works out well also.>Car engines are well, well advanced in terms of reliability>and performance when comparing them to aircraft engines.>Things will be changing, but probably not soon enough.>As to reliability, you'd really have to argue on that one. Generally, these tried and true aircraft engines will go and go and go. It's often said, that some are bullet proof. Not always true of course, but good enough! I bought a Lycoming. Think I want a Subie, or rotary?Certainly not at this point. Wouldn't use one if it was given to me.IMO, simulating engine wear in FS, is like simulating what happens to the airframe while crashing. It's a waste, unless the sim pilot goes out of his/her way to see what will happpen. If the sim pilot wants to fly several thousand hours, just to see some abuse a few students might give a flight schools airplane, then so be it. Program the engine to fail at 2345 hrs due to lack of oil, and not a bit less! :D L.Adamson

>>Self promoting today, huh Lou? Why not tell the truth? There>is no damage modeling on DreamFleet aircraft because you just>do not put the time and energy into doing it.>I fly airplanes. I've installed airplane engines. I've installed auto-pilots, constant speed props, and electrical systems. And I go along with what Lou said.In fact, I wouldn't waste the time using built in system or damage modeling with simulated aircraft. As Lou said, it's better to concentrate on other areas of realism.If I truly want a simulated system failure, then I just "fake it", just like I'm faking "flight" in the first place! :D I don't need some programmer wasting time to fake the consequences of "abuse"!L.Adamson

>FWIW, the majority still much prefer the simplistic "glorified>tractor engines". Wrong. The majority of people are not given a choice. I am not talking about experimentals, I am talking about Manf's.Given a choice, anyone that knows anything about engines would prefer electronic ignitions, Fadec, roller tappets, just to name a minimum few. Ever wonder why #3 cylinder in a lycoming is usually the hottest running? That assumes you are using a 4 probe egt/cht? I know exactly why and it would take too much space on this post to explain, besides not serving a related purpose for use of this forum. Let me sum it up quick. Design flaw. >As to reliability, you'd really have to argue on that one.>Generally, these tried and true aircraft engines will go and>go and go. It's often said, that some are bullet proof. Not>always true of course, but good enough! I bought a Lycoming.>Think I want a Subie, or rotary?>Certainly not at this point. Wouldn't use one if it was given>to me.Then throw it my way. I know better. Current aircraft engines are very susceptible to how they are flown and the inherent design flaws of antique technology. Carefully understanding and monitoring fuel/egt/cht and cooling is critical to the life expectancy of any current lot of air cooled a/c engines, tractor magnetos, downdraft carbs, and poor antiquated designs are things of the past and you can embrace them if you wish. I won't. One thing I know very well are Lycoming engines and it's from a personal, practical and mechanical standpoint, I have a very strong and lengthy mechanical background and I do my own work. I have built Harleys that are much more complex than an aircraft engine ever thought about being. And that was in the 80's.I know what I fly. Do I trust it? Yes, because I know my airplane inside and out. Is there better technology. You better believe it.Anyone that doesn't think so is kidding themselves, and not in tune with current engine technologies. Jim

>>FWIW, the majority still much prefer the simplistic>"glorified>>tractor engines". >>>Wrong. The majority of people are not given a choice. I am not>talking about experimentals,But.............I am talking experimentals, where thousands upon thousands are given the choice. As of today, there are 4630 Van's Kitbuilt/experimentals flying. Most are Lycs. The choice of a Lycoming, Lycoming clone, or Continental is far and above a glorified auto retrofit. Just as anything else, this subject is argued in forum after forum, day after day. And many, just won't agree with you.And, as much as I love Harleys......Do I really trust the engine? Well, not as much as I trust my 98' Honda Valkyrie's flat six liquid cooled engine. I'm just the reverse; liquid cooling for the stop and go ground travel, and the simplicity of air cooling in flight. L.Adamson

Ok Larry,Have fun flying your tractor! :-) Jim

>The choice of a>Lycoming, Lycoming clone, or Continental is far and above a>glorified auto retrofit. Also keep in mind, nobody said anything about an auto retrofit.I am talking about technology, not auto retrofits.Jim

>>The choice of a>>Lycoming, Lycoming clone, or Continental is far and above a>>glorified auto retrofit. >>Also keep in mind, nobody said anything about an auto>retrofit.>I am talking about technology, not auto retrofits.>I'm basically not talking "old" auto retrofits, such as a cut in half VW engine either. Actually, I'm referring to new engines such as a Suburu four & six cylinder, with fuel injection, electronic ignition, and even turbo charged if desired. I suppose I just don't like the idea of several drag inducing radiators connected with twisting hoses, slimy antifreeze, and a few hundred bundled wires making there way to the computer systems, etc.Then on top of that, it requires the additional weight and complexity of a prop reduction unit to get from 6500 rpm to a managable 2700 "prop RPM". Not to mention the extra cost of an electric constant speed prop, because these engines don't adapt readily to a hollow crank for the hydraulic C/S.L.Adamson

>I'm basically not talking "old" auto retrofits, such as a cut>in half VW engine either. Actually, I'm referring to new>engines such as a Suburu four & six cylinder, with fuel>injection, electronic ignition, and even turbo charged if>desired. >>I suppose I just don't like the idea of several drag inducing>radiators connected with twisting hoses, slimy antifreeze, and>a few hundred bundled wires making there way to the computer>systems, etc.>>Then on top of that, it requires the additional weight and>complexity of a prop reduction unit to get from 6500 rpm to a>managable 2700 "prop RPM". Not to mention the extra cost of an>electric constant speed prop, because these engines don't>adapt readily to a hollow crank for the hydraulic C/S.>>L.AdamsonOk, let me try this a little bit s..l..o..w..e..rn..o..b..o..d..y - s..a..i..d - a..n..y..t..h..i..n..g - a..b..o..u..t - an - a..u..t..o - r..e..p..l..a..n..t - p..e..r..i..o..dI'm done. Have fun with this.Jim

>Ok, let me try this a little bit s..l..o..w..e..r>n..o..b..o..d..y - s..a..i..d - a..n..y..t..h..i..n..g - > a..b..o..u..t - an - a..u..t..o - r..e..p..l..a..n..t> - p..e..r..i..o..d>>I'm done. Have fun with this.>>Jim>Okay... .... ... ...Then we'll just discuss all those promising engines, with projected FAA certification and delivery dates, that "never" seem to materialize, or at best, get past the production of one or two examples. If anything, a few diesels might make it. In the meantime, it seems the updated 1930's technology, is still a good bet. :)L.Adamson

Hey. What about the prospect of this being an aircraft engine.http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htmWhat do you think? Is this going to work?

John,You must always load in the 2D view to initialise a range of our programming features not found in FS9 by default, and that includes the damage accumulation function. You should also not load from a saved flight, as either of those two circumstances can interfere with accumulating damage record keeping. The Load Manager can purge the accumulated damage if the Windows data logging has somehow got confused and/or corrupted. We had a tool to do that, but now it's built into the Load Managers. You can always write us about a one-off like this and we can probably resolve it very quickly. Thing is, we haven't heard of this sort of problem for a very long time.As far as Lycoming engine reliability ... someone should talk to Klambach & Hennessy from Bankstown SY who just last weekend just lost their third ferry aircraft in about twelve months over the Pacific due to (yawn) another Lycoming engine failure. According to the reports, none had done more than 400 Hrs from brand new (not SMOH).As far as damage modelling goes, it's certainly easier to ignore it than do something about it in FS. We chose to implement it (and as best as I can remember, we were the first to have a fair go at it) and whilst by definition FS damage modelling must always be imperfect, we have refined to be within reasonable limits. Of course, it can be compromised by not loading the a/c in the 2D view, where systems have to initialise, but that is covered in the instructions ...HTH......Regards,http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Manny,If you having technical trouble with the FSD Seneca please write to us. I'm sure we can fix whatever the problem is.Regards,http://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Okay, to the person about FSPassengers: www.fspassengers.comSteve, thanks, but I do load default flight and 2d panel. Just for some reason it always keeled over on me before startup. I'm sitting there on the starter watching the prop turn slowly but not lighting up. :(I've turned off the systems modelling on the Navajo now, plus I was having another issue lately with it reloading textures every few minutes, which was becoming a real pain. So last night I went over to the Seneca (your one) for the same flight. That's a lovely bird and flew all the way doing at or around 200 KGS on something like 88% throttle. No red lines nothing and that does have the modelling left on.I'll drop in your forums later as I'm sure I was doing something wrong, I kept having a 'beep' for ages going off, then suddenly after about .75 of an hour it just went off of it's own accord, and I'm not sure what caused it. That I know was something I missed, at first I thought it was the pressurisation, but I turned that on at around 8000 feet. It was long after this it went away.

>As far as Lycoming engine reliability ... someone should talk>to Klambach & Hennessy from Bankstown SY who just last weekend>just lost their third ferry aircraft in about twelve months>over the Pacific due to (yawn) another Lycoming engine>failure. According to the reports, none had done more than 400>Hrs from brand new (not SMOH).If that's the Piper Seminole incident that ditched in the Pacific; then I heard it's a case of a fuel leak. The shutdown engine was actually restarted for a more controlled and successful ditching. As to the fuel leak; problem with systems installation?, something to do with ferrying tanks?L.Adamson