Got it! Thank you so much! I guess in real life the pilot would hardly notice if one of the systems had failed, right? Edit: Disregard. My question doesn't make sense.

All flight plan data is stored in Asobo's magical cloud, as this is the only form of state saving available to me from JavaScript. This should persist across reinstallations, and possibly even follows your Microsoft account across different computers, but I've never tried it. It's possible someone has found where these files might be cached locally, but I also have something you could do... I've been meaning to get confirmation of whether this works without Developer Mode enabled, or the SDK installed, but you could try going to "http://127.0.0.1:19999/" in your web browser. When the aircraft is running, look for the blue link with "CDU" in the name, then click on the "Console" tab. If you then go to the Read/Write Diskette screen on the CDU, and insert the floppy disk, you will find an option to write all your flight plans and other user data to the console open in your browser. You can then backup your flight plans by copy-pasting.

Ahhh that’s a shame. I’d got used to all the B/IE goodness making that all easy. At least I can just crack on with an SD profile now

That is because a lot of RNAV SIDs and STARs have special leg types that can’t be replicated with manual waypoint entry. AIRNC 424 specifies 23 different leg types such as course to altitude, heading to intercept, radius to fix, DME arcs, etc. Of these 23 legs, only fix to fix legs can be easily replicated by manual entry. If you find a STAR or SID that only has fix to fix routing, there’s no technical reason why you can’t fly it. You can perform the others with some creative flying, but it technically won’t be as accurate as a fully AIRNC 424 capable navigation system. Hence why the regulations require you to select all procedures from the database. Better safe than sorry.

I had an excellent tech instructor during a Beech course many years ago who was heavily involved in the systems engineering behind the Starship (basically adapting earlier 1900 systems and the unique conditioning system was his pervue). He later went on to working on the 1900D project which actually utilized a lot of the systems improvements from Starship. Anyways, he didn't have many particularly positive things to discuss in regards to Burt Rutan. Burt is a visionary and elegant designer of aircraft, and big pioneer of composites in aviation - but ultimately he wasn't a talented production engineer who stuck things out through to the actual production phase. It was explained to my that Burt basically abandoned the program after completion of the smaller scale prototype by Scaled Composites. When it came time to develop the tooling, processes, certification basis, and systems of a true - production quality aircraft - he had largely detached himself from Beech. That, and all the financial troubles and fallout from the Starship program that lead to the eventual purchase of Beech by Raytheon - had left Rutan's name a bit sour at Beechcraft. So anyways, I don't know if Rutan would ultimately be much of an interesting guest in regards to seeing what we enjoy as simmers and what Nick has so generously developed. Simply put, beyond the initial prototype, overall aerodynamics and design (which ultimately was still less efficient and more costly than a similar King Air 350) - Rutan himself was long removed from the Starship project at rollout.

@Sunake said in Preflight question: I realised you can't leave all the avionics on for engine start because I saw a steamer do it and the generator couldn't handle the load and tripped off. I just love the fact that this can happen!