The problem with rules of thumb, is trying to justify them later
True .. but, for the record .. 0.5 kt/kt comes from Douglas for the DC9-33F (I probably still have the fax on file somewhere) and I use that as the bottom figure (the Diesel 9 being held to track on the runway like it's on rails .. which it certainly DOESN'T near Vmcg .. and, probably, I still have the videos to back up that statement .. DC9 exiting the field of view left or right as the case may have been .. with my good mate CJF busily treading the light fantastic on the pedals ..) and the B747 is a bit above 1.0 kt/kt as I recall from some OEM paperwork I read years ago ... hence my rule of thumb range. Is it a guarantee ? .. of course not .. there aren't any in this life.
My concern is that of risk .. why put the aircraft in that sort of difficult speed range .. if you don't need to ? .. and then, given the flexibility to do so .. I'd include a few extras knots for mum and the kids.
they didn’t consider V1=VMCG with a crosswind to be a problem
.. and neither it is .. so long as you don't have an engine failure with the wind from the wrong side.
AFAIK, Oz is the only country to have looked at the problem in detail ... I wouldn't give a fig for NWS based on some of the videos I have taken from the upwind threshhold during testing ... did I mention how it's very illuminating not to see an aircraft .. after it's departed the video viewfinder during critical cuts ? .. centreline tracking during a failure is one of those folkloric myths the pilot fraternity likes to perpetuate ...
I often take advantage of available time to practice engine "failures" myself
.. only the one caveat .. depends on the fidelity of the particular simulator in that area of the operational envelope. I recall a 732 box which was dreadfully and unrealistically boring before, but illuminating and electrifying following .. a software upgrade tweak in compliance with the FAA's stance on rudder modelling ...