I didn't pay too much attention to the airplane analogy. As revs allow low gearing and hence torque multiplication via gearing - comparing a geared vehicle with a non geared prop driven machine only confuses things.
Perhaps a VVankel does confuse things, but I can substitute a 2 stroke engine that does have same speed pistons and cranks, again a 2 stroke is a 'low torque' engine, yet as it fires twice as many times as a 4 stroke and therefore has twice the torques per second and can outperform a similar cc'd 4 stroke at the same revs.
The other fact that tells you it is power and not torque that produces the acceleration is the accelration graph of a torque limited engine. According to the author above, he would suggest the rate of acceleration would be static once the torque plateau was reached all the way to the end of it. This is incorrect, the rate of acceleration increases with revs at the same torque level. Perfect example that it is power that dictates the acceleration.
If I understand the above correctly then I beg to differ.
Assuming a flat torque curve over the rev range then in any given gear the torque at the wheels will be the same until either the torque curve drops away or the rev limit is reached. Thus acceleration is constant.
Power is the continued production of torque at elevated rpm - which allows torque magnifying gearing to be used - hence a quicker vehicle. It is still torque (a force) doing the accelerating. Power though, still tells us the accelerative ability - but it does so by indicating that low ratio gearing is possible. Therefore, power is all.
Do you not understand what RPM actually is? Yes the last acronym is MINUTE = TIME so what exactly do you have a probelm with? Maybe I should dumb it down even more for you?
Do you not understand what RPM actually is? Yes the last acronym is MINUTE = TIME so what exactly do you have a probelm with? Maybe I should dumb it down even more for you?