Radford, yes most changes are on the HS needle, but I have had to tinker with the LS as well. Just really inconvenient. HS is easier, for sure. And yes, I suspect this machine is not the strongest of build, just looking at those ears where the cylinders bolt on makes me nervous.
Scubaozy, I tend to agree with you that unless the exhaust valve doesn't open AT ALL, there is not much chance of a hydro-lock, but then the state of hydro-lock wouldn't exist at all, and we know that it does. How an engine could get into that state, while running, is odd. But should not be disqualified altogether. Just a note while I was running the engine on the bench, I had it mounted upside down to get No.1 to fire as evenly as the others, and I was intermittently removing the plug caps on No2. and No.3, while it was running inverted so as to get them to heat-cycle. If there was ever a way to induce a hydro-lock (or destroy an ignition), that was it. What it did to was make sure that there was a lot of unburnt fuel running through the induction and exhaust systems, lubing everything up. I suppose I could have broken the engine right there and then. Even then, after seeing how dry the No1. valve train was after 10 flights, was scary, and I think that any lack of lube anywhere could lead to a malfunction in a big way. Who knows, maybe people have had a valve stick somewhere along the way and 'pow!' cylinder broken.....although, I would expect the break on No1. and not No2.
Slither, one guy had his break in-flight, and still managed to land it, with the engine running! So no, not starter related from what we are seeing here.
Shultz, I don't think Saito or HH would EVER admit to something needing a re-tool. That would make them responsible for many freebies/fixes. No, I think they would say that ANYWAY, regardless. What would be interesting is to know what percentage of engines sold, and running, have had this failure.
If they have sold 10,000 and 9,000 are actually running, and out of those, there were 10 failures, that would be an acceptable figure I suppose.....anything below 5% fail rate could allow them grounds to say that some of those weren't broken in properly, were not baffled/cooled properly, oil/fuel ratio was incorrect, not serviced properly, yadda yadda yadda....Don't assume they are going to fix it. Just determine whether you want the engine badly enough that you would pay for it. I personally don't have the money to replace this thing over and over again with the same problem, but it is an AWESOME engine. Puts a huge smile on my face...