From the very first lines of this thread:
Fair comment. Two ways to view the thought. Most OEMs of my reading recommend a forward stick load for takeoff in a crosswind (often with a suggestion to wash the load out as the speed increases) so an "increased" NW load of whatever magnitude is there at the failure. Concur that I can't recall a suggestion to increase loading post failure for the continued case. My take is that the line pilot, typically, has more than enough to keep him/her busy without worrying about an additional stick load input. However, the point stills remains that the thrust of the thread is background discussion to encourage thinking, rather than overt suggestions to encourage novel handling techniques.
Hopefully there is some confidence from discussing stuff like in a tech thread to reduce the surprised factor when faced with an unfamiliar combination
Therein lies a prime value of this Forum.
The larger danger, however is to substitute such in place of what the manufactures have recommended.
This is a critically important consideration. In respect of emergencies, etc., the OEM, generally, will have the preferred story for the line pilot.
meaning actual VMCG can be much greater or much less than what would be published
Hence the concern when the line pilot is faced with a min speed schedule which may put the operation somewhere near the real world, on the day, "Vmcg" (as opposed to the fixed book figure). The danger is that the typical pilot has little/no exposure to the nature of Vmcg and just how savagely handling can change in that speed region during a takeoff failure. A bit of the old forewarned is forearmed; the preference is to avoid having one's first exposure to a particular class of excitement on the fly, as it were.
Even when we did one engine inoperative takeoff training in the sim
Which is why some of us made a point of exposing newbies in the sim (even if the box is not altogether tops in fidelity) to such things for the exposure/discussion/thinking in the armchair value