FLI: do you read the responses? Look for your point about the fuel dump on the take off part in both my posts. Is there an echo here somewhere? Whilst you highlight the lack of brainspace available to the pilot during an OEI on take off, I note that floats and contingency power limiter switches have previously been incorporated and successfully used in the past despite such brainspace issues.
The point was that the fuel dump is not effective on the rejected take off, nor after the TDP, but it is usefull for the other 99.64% by giving you a much improved power margin for your subsequent actions. You want the power margin - and a fuel dump will give that to you. Not only does it provide you better enroute planning ability due to the ability to significantly increase drift down altitudes, it provides you a significantly better margin when you try to land OEI, but it also gives you an improving margin in your OEI flyaway attempt after TDP. And if you correctly pick your flight path (avoiding disabled kindergardens and day care centres), a fuel dump below 1000ft AGL is justified in an emergency.
So, to incorporate a fuel dump into your risk management process, you will take off 60lbs heavier, thus you should climb a bit extra for the TDP, and increase LDP. For that 0.36% of the sortie you will land 60lbs heavier in your OEI situation, but between TDP and LDP you will have a power margin increase and thus a reduced risk exposure over the remaining 99.64% of the sortie, and it may even allow you to accept higher enroute LSALTs and a more direct route due to the higher drift down capability.
Or, FLI, maybe an accurate analysis of your operating environment, payload requirements, and acceptable risk exposure levels could be matched to a machine that IS capable of achieving your aims, rather than purchasing one that just doesnt do the job and trying to blame the manufacturers for insufficient power. They make machines with sufficient power for your mission profile, you just have to pay for it.