Scramjet (are you tied up with the QLD project by any chance),
Good meaty stuff.
I presume that you are referring to Dave Robson's book in the Trevor Thom series. Dave is a very experienced TP, instructor and a nice guy (as is Trevor) .. he took me for a chase plane ride in a somewhat faster aeroplane many years ago which was the highlight of my little life ...
I haven't had a chance to read his book although I did manage a 30 second skim through it some weeks ago and it appears to say the sensible sorts of things which I would expect. Certainly Dave's background warrants consideration of what he might have to say.
Some thoughts of my own directed to your questions/comments.
(a) try not to mix procedures relating to light and heavy aircraft. The certification bases are quite different and to do so generally creates more confusion that illumination.
(b) runway environments (lengths and splay obstacle profiles) will dictate what is the range of sensible and practical options for takeoff in a light twin.
(c) the general design, certification and operational requirements address the AEO case which, if the pilot hasn't given enough thought to the possible OEI situation, can lead to some degree of surprise.
(d) if the runway environment is benign .. ie lots of distance and a good end of strip gradient, consider the advantages of accelerating to a speed a little above blue line (actual or gross weight doesn't matter too much in this case) while you have both engines and then plan on cleaning up at a suitable height without too much delay ..
(i) hopefully, the available distance will permit the aircraft to be landed in the remaining distance or, at least, brought to a low speed overrun situation if something untoward occurs prior to achieving a useful climb speed. If the takeoff is continued OEI configuration can be achieved without delay. Much more importantly, the operational decision process can be made very much simpler for the pilot.
(ii) a big problem with an early airborne failure, especially if you don't do a LOT of OEI practice, is that you can lose an embarrassing amount of speed very quickly due to mishandling, indecision, and unnecessary delay. Given the marginal performance of this class of aeroplane with any decent gross weight and at any density height much above sea level, this is not a very desirable thing to have happen. Hence the reference to "airspeed being everything" ... the aircraft may only climb under stable conditions within a comparatively narrow airspeed band .. it is quite easy to lose speed, but a devil of a job to get it back without descending .. therefore, is it not better to start a little bit faster ? Leaves you with an ace up the sleeve.
(e) if there is plenty of runway, consider using nil flap for takeoff. Although there may be some certification issues overlooked by doing this, it does avoid the problems associated with reconfiguring at low level in a very dynamic situation following a failure. The question of approximate distance required can be addressed from first principles without too much trouble, keeping in mind that distance bears a relationship to speed squared. One would do this conservatively to allow for the fact that the piston installation provides a notionally constant power, not thrust, output. If this is desired for routine takeoff operation, it becomes appropriate to investigate a suitable STC to cover the non-standard takeoff configuration. This has been my preferred approach for many years and I prefer to stay on the ground, if that is appropriate for the particular aircraft, until I have a suitable higher takeoff speed in hand.
(f) consider pitching to the OEI body attitude during takeoff. Generally this works well in the event of a subsequent failure and gives an acceptable acceleration AEO. If there is no failure, once you achieve the desired AEO climb speed, then maintain it by adjusting body attitude to suit the conditions. For the range of light piston twins with which I have played over the years, a nominal 10 degrees seems to be a useful default target body angle.
(g) if the runway, by contrast, is tight (shortish and with a nasty obstacle profile) then you have very few options -
(i) can I use a longer runway ?
(ii) can I takeoff somewhat lighter or wait until the wind and/or DH is more favourable ?
(iii) can I go by car ? .. my preference in this case ...
If you decide that you are stuck with it, then there is little to be done other than follow the available book procedure until the obstacles are cleared, accelerate and clean up, and climb away at the desired AEO speed, preferably something in excess of blue line.
If the engine fails prior to this, you have a big problem .. one for which you must have decided your immediate actions prior to commencing the takeoff....
(i) can I land ahead without hitting something terribly hard ?
(ii) can I turn left or right to get over benign terrain and continue the takeoff ? If this is the case, why were you planning on a straight ahead takeoff anyway ?
If you don't have one of these two options available, and the AEO case was pretty limiting, then you are almost certainly about to become a statistic. In all cases it is worth keeping in mind that one is far better off crashing under control than out of control.