Extended full-power in small pistons

Viperdoc writes:

There is no question that it would be ideal to have an aircraft engine work
like a car engine, e.g. FADEC. However, complexity also adds further
possible failure modes.

True, but nowadays most of the complexity is in the G1000, not the engines.
I'd trust a FADEC in an airliner long before I'd trust a G1000. Many glass
cockpits are far too complex and far too poorly tested.

It's odd that pilots would object to a more modern engine on the one hand, but
are more than willing to install the iffy technology of a glass cockpit.

In reality, most piston engines simply require
setting the power for take off, then cruise, and finally descent. It is not
hard at all to do, nor does it add dramatically to the work load (and I have
two engines to consider in my plane).

So losing things like mixture and prop control really wouldn't take anything
away from the pilot, anyway. So why not do it?

Rather than defend or justify Anthony's now increasing list of comebacks and
partial responses, or criticising the other posters, why not answer his
question?

Why haven't you answered the question yourself?