To stay on the runway rapid and aggressive inputs were the order of the day, not ideal but workable.
I would have thought extremely appropriate .. even ideal .. and, hopefully, sufficiently workable for Government work.
"Launching" at minimum speeds?
slack wordiology strikes again, I fear .. how about if I correct the phrase to "minimum speed schedule" .. ie Vmcg/Vmca-limited V1/VR/V2 ?
just subject to the usual disclaimers
problems arise when many pilot folk overlook the disclaimers
.. controllability requirements follow an engine failure below Vmcg
first, and very important point, is that Vmcg (and Vmca, for that matter) are artificial certification animals which have no precisely direct application to line operations (other than in their invocation as limits in the takeoff speed schedules). What is more relevant is the real world value for the day .. for which the pilot doesn't have any data.
One thing is for sure, if some of the noise stops below too low a speed (this real world figure) then things will happen quickly and unpleasantly. There are no requirements below these line-in-the-sand values .. the aircraft probably will become quite instantly uncontrollable .. the only rational pilot response is to get rid of the thrust and stop/land/crashland.
Indeed, for most pilots who have had no exposure to such regions of the envelope, even a failure at a modest margin above the real world figure will rapidly become a departure.
Any implication that there is any future in continuing a takeoff in such circumstances was not intended in my post and is quite incompatible with real world physics.
I don't see any "promises" in either Part 23 or Part 25 ... rather I prefer to observe that there are high levels of probability of successful outcomes in some emergency circumstances in Part 25 and very, very much lower levels of probability in (many) Part 23 birds .. I recall several colleagues who held different views ... and are no longer with us.
Particularly with smaller aircraft, the certification kingdom has branched into so many subparts that generalised discussion is fraught with confusion for those who don't play in the certification sandpit.
If I am launching in a small twin under reasonably limiting conditions (weight/Hp/OAT) .. and one quits below blue line .. then I have a high confidence that my preferred option will be to miss the big trees during the subsequent crash landing .. far too many people have demonstrated the unsuccessful mode of continuing a takeoff in a light twin with a failure at low speed .. not to say that it can't be done in some appropriate circumstances .. but I would want to be VERY proficient in the particular ship AND be launching out of a very benign aerodrome when considering the surrounding terrain/cultural obstructions.