> 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
>>

>
>
>