In a 'round about way, yes.
In the early days of jet transport flying, rejected takeoffs were planned to be done more or less as in piston transport aircraft.
Max wheel braking.
Spoilers up (jets only).
Originally, this seemed a good idea, but a series of nasty overrun accidents showed that the rules that applied to piston transport aircraft just would not be suitable for jet transport aircraft, so certification regulations were amended to take into account the much higher energy involved in stopping a heavy jet transport, in the event that the takeoff needed to be rejected for whatever reason.
Engine failure recognition times were built in to account for the slower reaction times demonstrated with normal line pilots (certification pilots do takeoffs with failed engines every day, line pilots do not) and, in one country, Australia, takeoff distances available were reduced by the amount of runway required to actually line up the aircraft from a right angle taxiway (in the case of the Boeing 707, 150 feet).
Further, Vr was added for jet transport aircraft, as it was demonstrated that jets, quite unlike piston engine transport aircraft, needed a definate larger pitch attitude for liftoff.
If certification regulations had not been changed, and jet aircraft flown like a piston (ie: takeoff at V2
), massive amounts of runway would be reguired, and tire limit speeds would be exceeded at heavy weights.
In addition, pilot training was changed to indicate the problems associated with trying to reject a takeoff in a heavy transport jet, which is much more demanding than in piston transport aircraft.
A high energy stop in a heavy transport jet is a very difficult maneuver to do successfully in most conditions, and overruns can be rather unpleasant.