"can be under" load and designed to be under load are two different things.
The Ranger engine is designed for an intermittent power application which includes cruise stints at rated GCM. Even there there will be bends, dips, hills winds which vary power demand.
Stationary Engines are designed for constant load application. They are started, run at a constant governed rpm and often have a constant power demand, such as a bore pump.
Aircraft engines are designed for constant load application. The application is usually a shirt climb, a long cruise and a short descent.
Manufacturers building for a constant power demand market need to design a more robust engine.
Manufacturers building for an intermittent power demand market can take a lot more shortcuts and save a lot of cost without detriment to the buyers in that market.
What confuses the issue are intermittent engines which punch way above their class. The small block Chev 350 is one of the legends, and the engines which have succeeded in recreational aircraft.
In general, you wouldn't think of putting an intermittent power demand engine in an aircraft but some have been bulletproof enough to make the grade.
In this particular crash, maybe the fuel tap is going to be found in the off position, maybe there had been an engine issue.
Either way, the splay at the end of the runway wasn't clear for a landing was it. And there are plenty more like that around the country.