HappyJack
I only pulled the PS because on further reflection I thought it added a degree of negativity to the post that I did not particularly intend.
My inference was not that a high rate of climb might reduce engine life, but rather the High Power/Low Power cycle every 2.5 min with its concurrent high heat production-low cooling/low heat production-high cooling effect will have a deleterious effect on the metal up front.
The inference being that a little less power on climb out (and therefore a lesser rate of climb) and a little more power on descent (and therefore a lower rate of descent) may prolong engine life and therefore obviate, to some extent, the need to hug the runway margins in the circuit.
I was taught to fly "tight" circuits, and I do so in the V-tail, but how I fly my circuits is not predicated by thoughts that the noise might stop. None-the-less, apart from the first 750' on climb and the last 750' on descent, I could make the runway in the remote possibility of suffering an engine failure in the circuit.
I just cannot see how you can use a SE aircraft for cross-country flying, and certainly not IFR as I do, if your hung up on having an engine failure in the circuit.
I suspect nobody in their right mind would take off in a single or light twin in either direction from 11/29 at YTWB, for example, if the likelihood of having an engine failure in the circuit area is as high as your original post might suggest - cause there ain't nowhere to go.
Dr