The theory may be sound Peter but the practical side sems to be very different. At Leics there is a TB10 and a 160HP 172 watching them take off with 2 POB within minutes of each other the TB takes nearly twice the runway of the club 172 which takes 50% more runway than my 172. This is more than just a case of horse power and prop, it is down to airframe design and wing design. A 172 wing is huge and develops a lot of lift very quickly so the out of the trap acceleration may be similar but I think the 172 turns it into lift faster.
Originally Posted by
IO540
Certainly, styling is a matter of opinion. I just don't agree with certain claims about performance figures. If you have two planes, both say 1000kg, both having say 180HP, and both having a VP prop, and both having the same stall speed, then both will have a very similar takeoff run and initial climb performance.
This is because, at speeds low enough for drag to be relatively less important, the acceleration is simply some constant multiplied by thrust/weight. Also when you get airborne, you are still flying slowly, so the climb rate (+fpm) will be similarly determined because you are converting engine power into potential energy.
The bit I underlined is the key to differing takeoff performance given the same power, and this is where loads of compromises in cruise speed, range, etc come from.