>Howdy Bernie, have a read of the following article by John Deakin.
>http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/78.jsp
>Actually, lots of articles by Deakin will argue that oversquare myth is
>just that.
>If you get the time, search around for a book by Kas Thomas called Fly the
>engine. It is most illuminating. Apart from agreeing with Deakin that
>oversquare is a hangover from the days of big radials, it also suggests that
>leaning in the ascent is an acceptable practice, something that I had been
>warned against in the past.
>I often go back and refer to it whenever I hear people talk about shock
>cooling - I am still yet to see any evidence that shock cooling exists.
>However, I have seen plenty of evidence of bent or broken valve guides due
>to stuck valves.
>Mick
>
>"BernieFlyer" gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:y6mdndyT5IadFiXVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

>> Hi Team
>>
>> I have an IO 360 engine with a 3 bladed constant speed prop. I was taught
>> to never operate with engine power (manifold pressure) greater than rpm eg
>> 23 inches of MP and 2,300 rpm. I have read though that this is something
>> of an old wives tale and that indeed there can be advantages in reducing
>> rpm and running the engine with say 24 inches and 2,200 rpm. This reduces
>> cylinder wear and piston speeds but does it stress the engine to a higher
>> level? There is a lot about "big bore" IO 540s and how they are getting
>> better life running oversquare. The IO 360 is a 4 vs a six but the
>> cylinders in both have the same capacity.
>>
>> I am interested in the views of those more of an engineering bent or
>> anyone who has a well informed view on the matter.
>>
>> Bernie

>