@vessbot
Perhaps I ventured too far. Hope the other message remains standing: for a given V2, there would be different acceleration schedules depending on runway length. Longer tarmac, less thrust, valid slower acceleration, satisfactory V2+10 at screen height by the end of CWY anyway.
Would you check your statement applies well in the second segment case, for climb angle of 1.4 deg with flaps out and perhaps 11 deg pitch?
The AFM data confirms that for the same thrust the climb gradient is better if IAS is increased, the so-called "improved climb V2 schedule". Without thinking too much about it, I was building on the classical vector cross with L in the upward sense opposing the W, and L = c(l) * area * 1/2 * density * v
^2. It has got to work somehow, nay?
OTOH that thing I uttered above about obstacles is rubbish. Higher required gradient, more thrust needed and usually lower speeds. Which underlines your point.
Where have all my marbles are gone?
(M. Dittrich tune)
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(...) 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.
That, for sure, is a physical necessity. I did not put the effort in to read your message properly before posting, apologies.