I think that the LEAR 20 series are not turbojets they're space rockets---or wannabe F4's---although I can tell you [as you know] they have taught some of the bigger jets how to really get upset though...I'll forever miss that baby though
The Lear 24 is the only aircraft I flew in which I declared minimum fuel while taxiing
.
Stuck in the lineup at Phoenix on a very hot summer day, 45 minutes into the wait, the reserve was gone and the air conditioning was non-existant. I asked the controller how long, he gave a mystical response about time and space and birthdays to come, and we declared minimum fuel. He asked if we were kidding, and we told him, no, we needed to taxi clear and go back to the FBO for fuel.
One of my reserve fuel tanks today holds nearly as much as the whole airplane did then...but it still kills us to hold short today for very long when we only allot 3,000 gallons for the taxi...some things never change.
I think that translates somewhat to this thread; it's different scales for different sizes of airplane, but the principles remain true...including those for V1.
Several posters here have thrown out some outlandish concepts regarding locked flight controls and so forth, and then asked the utterly ridiculous question as to whether one will continue the flight or not. Clearly when flight is not at all possible one will not...that shouldn't even need to be dignified by discussion...but where the airplane will fly and is able, there's just no good reasont to stay on the ground. Even in a Lear. With a drogue chute...
Of course, in a citation, where the biggest threat is experiencing bird strikes from behind...