Thanks again fellas
HarleyD thanks in particular, your skills and exploits are known to me, say g'day to GL sometime for me if he's still over that way. Great if you or anyone else could confirm the official definition of Vr, clearly if it is as you stated my technique becomes a mute point if I wish to be legal.
An interesting point, at least to me, which appears not to have been considered in the responses is the fact that Vr is given as 69 kts at weights 983 kg less than our TOW.
This infers that the Vr speed is tracking at least from the point of 5217 kg and upward the requirement for Vr not being less than the certification 1.10 x Vs2
I can not see that the relationship between Vmca (65 kts) is influenced by the weight, certainly no promulgated changes in the AFM/POH
Therefore I am seeing the Vr speed rising in consequence to the increasing Vs2. As stated I am not actually lifting off until the prescribed Vr speed of 79 kts or even a few knots later. Other than an increase in drag coefficient by placing the aircraft in a slightly higher AoA and this is not of great consequence in the situations I am referring as runway available is ample.
If my assumption above is correct is accelerating to 79 kts from a lower weight approved Vr rotation speed of 69 kts through to 79 kts with the nose wheel slightly above touching the runway a cause for concern when considering matters related to the stall?
HarleyD interesting comment on being careful flying an aircraft outside it's design certification envelope, somehow we all become untrained TP's by default in that funny old back n forth game with regard to certification weights and the CASA removal of any requirement for adherence to weight limitations. Or the G10 low Vn envelope inherited from much early lower powered models.
Thanks again for your feed back on this.