One of the measures Road & Track used to publish (and maybe they still do) is 'piston feet per mile' referring to how much travel the pistons went at a given RPM in top gear for a mile of distance travelled. Maybe piston feet per hour would be a good measure for any engine used in an aviation motor. It was considered a good comparative measure of longevity/reliability in high performance automotive applications.
Just a thought. Mark W. N952MW (res.) -----Original Message----- Jeff Scott wrote: Something to remember is that Continental also made a GO-300 that uses the same rods and bearings, and a slightly different piston. Same compression, not really any beefier, but turns 3100 or 3200 RPMs. They are also a 1200 hour TBO, just for comparisons sake, and often times don't make that. As Edd says, the loads go up dramatically with RPMs, so running them hard and fast is a great way to make a really reliable engine into a not so reliable engine. And the failure mode of a rod or valve failure is not a pleasant thing to experience in flight. Horse power isn't going to get you much in the way of speed. Aerodynamics will get you speed. HP is good for climb performance. I prefer to work at aerodynamic clean up to make the plane go fast and rarely push my engine beyond the recommended rpm range. Your mileage may vary.
