Mike

Yours and or others interaction with BME may leave something to be desired IMO, every case has its own merit and there are always two sides to the equation. The initial contact with respect to your engine, indignation and demands may have been akin to further constructive interaction.

It’s plausible the engine was run lean via the tune-up, the engines physical condition denotes same (other things can cause this damage too). All that said I don’t recall any instance were you suggest it was possible for the engine to have been miss-tuned? You simply suggest it must have been something other than and or a problematic engine…

The information you have provided as well as Keith’s inspection leads me and others I suspect to believe the engine damage was the result of a lean run like it or not. To steadfastly deny same and point fingers is unwarranted IMO because it’s possible, nothing more. When and where did you accept the possibility of a lean run? You cannot be absolutely sure this was not the case, nobody can! I will acquiesce to the fact the something other was at play, but its unlikely IMO.

Let’s look at the facts:

Two hours or so on the test stand.
Twelve uneventful flights.
Gas was proven in other engines.
Engine ducting, installation, exhaust system and setup were proven with second engine.
Engine physical condition, i.e., hung cylinders.

All the above leads me to believe the engine was proven based on the previous run time and subsequent flights. The only variables left are the engines tune-up, its new environment and human error (Diablo’s comments are viable too). That said I’m not taking sides just attempting to bring another perspective to an unfortunate situation. You maybe wrong it’s that simple, on the other hand BME maybe at fault we’ll never be absolutely sure of either....