Ok, I lied, I will come back in for another banting session... :-) It's too much fun.Larry, as long as you keep focusing on experimentals, than you can and do have a whole lot more liberties than normal manufactured certified aircraft. Don't try and compare them because it isn't apples for apples. And as long as your Lycoming is sitting in your garage not accumulating engine time, well... I guess it is pretty reliable.:7 But to continue the point I tried to make to you earlier... if Lycoming is so reliable, you tell me why they have had crankshaft recalls beyond belief. A panther Navajo that I fly on occasion had a crank recall on its right engine. Sent back to the factory, out of commission for 6 months along with many other folks, only to have the returned engine recalled 2 months after receiving it back along with the left one this time. These type of engines are extremely antiquated and if you understood the process, cost and time frames for certifying anything new with respect to manufactured aircrafts, you would not make the quick snap comment about how the 1930's engines are a "good bet". Most people go bankrupt before they can get it through the bureaucratic process.These engines are modified tractor engines. Actually, that's not very kind. New tractors have much better engines. :-)sloppy pistons, crappy cams and lifters, poor fuel and air distribution, gas guzzling inefficient dinasoars. It might make your gandpa smile, but it usually doesn't make owners of manf aircraft, with a mecahnical background very happy at all.You should be thankful you have choices as an experimental. Some people just get beat to death with with maintenance and labor to maintain manf. aircraft to the point of just getting out of it because of the cost and ongoing expenses. When a business gets tight. guess what is the first thing to go? The airplane. Because it is so expensive to maintain and it usually is not the airframe. Ok, I can see this will be a perpetual thread if I entertain it. :-) I fly and maintain my lycoming dinasoar, but there are indeed better choices and much better technologies available, if they can make it through the process.Best,Jim

>It might>make your gandpa smile, but it usually doesn't make owners of>manf aircraft, with a mecahnical background very happy at>all.>No.............................. :D You're going to find many long time aircraft designers, who still recommend these engines for their aircraft. As I said before, you can find web site after web site with pros & cons on this subject. Let's don't assume that "anyone" with a mechanical background is going to be un-happy. There will always be two "camps" on this issue.Jon Johanson, who is from Australia, flew his Van's RV4 (kitplane) and Lycoming around the world three times in different directions. I assume he must of trusted the plane and that Lyc. :-hah Another pilot from the U.K., also just finished his round the world in an RV6 with a Lycoming. As to fuel efficiency, it still seems that those Lycoming, Continentals, and clones, are still right there at the top. I really do read many comparisons on this subject. You'll always see a prototype on paper, or supposeably in intial testing, that claims a vast improvement; but I've yet to see it. Those "auto conversions" I mentioned are always compared to the Lyc/Continentals. Some times they do a bit better or worse. Depends on altitude too.And yes, the year of my then new Lycoming 0360/180HP/Hartzell C/S prop, has escaped the ravages of the crank recalls. Of course this subject of SB's and AD's, and the why's and wherefor's isn't going to make the most sense to the majority of flight simmers, without some additional research. L.Adamson

>Why not tell the truth? The truth is that some like you have no clue what a half-decent simulated damage modeling would entail. :(Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>Current aircraft engines are very susceptible to how they are>flown and the inherent design flaws of antique technology.Is it becaues of lack of FADEC? Our automotive engines have been coming with fairly advanced fadec-like electronics stuff for quite a few years now.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>>Why not tell the truth? >>The truth is that some like you have no clue what a>half-decent simulated damage modeling would entail. :(>>Michael J.Thank you for that very useful input. Very mature. What's next...you gonna' ring our doorbell and run?:-rollRob

>Thank you for that very useful input. Very mature. >:-rollNot less mature then your "shameless plug" :-rollMichael J.

I've been using the FSD Navajo pretty much since it was released and have blown up plenty of engines in that time, but every time apart from one that I never really explained, it was my fault. You can't just open the throttle to full and hold it there on this aircraft - you have to watch T's & P's like a hawk and pull the throttle back very soon after you get the draggy stuff in.I have destroyed them before takeoff, but only once or twice - most of mine were because I wasn't paying close enough attention or was too used to flying other aircraft that *do* want full power or near to for the climbout. It shouldn't blow before you rotate, though, unless something is seriously wrong.One thing that did happen to me once, which does sound like your experience above, was that I loaded the aircraft and both engines immediately failed, even though they weren't running and had been fine at the end of the previous flight. I just repaired them using the load manager and they worked perfectly afterwards. Have you tried that?I can take the engine failures or leave them as a flight sim add-on feature, to be honest. I fly the Navajo because I like the add-on, not because I have to be more careful handling it. ;-)Cheers,Ian P.