Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
If the thrust is set for a desired (2.4 OEI) climb performance, depending on the mass of the aircraft, there would be a certain Thrust/Mass ratio. Not constant but as a function of flaps and the density altitude it should be pretty coherent. Per Sir Isaac's F=-a*m, by its mathematical definition, thrust to mass ratio IS the acceleration.
So where's the problem?
Obstacles requiring a higher than 2.4 ratio? I do not think so, with two running you'd clear them anyway.
But about the gradient: it is actually achieved by Lift /Mass, contrary to the suggestion I made above. The lift does evolve from the (square of) speed, but the required speed needs only to be achieved within the constraints of TODA/ASDA, so the acceleration required varies greatly. (lederhosen's post #12).
I still think the idea is good. Understanding the reasons why all the clever and experienced minds of yesteryear had not brought forward a solution already is part of the approach on how to crack the nut.
As a recap of the previous debates, the wide range of valid accelerations is part of the problem
I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as you on this subject, the only thing I tried to point out is that using FLEX instead of TOGA for will probably result in acceleration numbers that have a lower spread instead of a higher spread.