mutt:
aterpster, your list of aircraft are all old generation aircraft
Well...the 767 is still rolling off the Boeing assembly lines, albeit with a lot better FMS. But, many airlines operate exactly the same version of the 767 I flew and with their fleet mixed with the Pegasus 767.
With new generation aircraft we also got new generation software, including electronic airplane flight manuals. The situations that you have detailed for LAS and RENO, need not exist today.
I don't see where today's "gee wiz" stuff has improved the OEI case all that much. The big improvements are better autopilots (but not that much better than the 767 I flew) RNP AR, LPV, RVSM, EGPWS, and TCAS. Auto checklists are great, too. Electronic charts are just a vector graphics presentation of a 1950s chart. Until database charts arrive, there is not much improvement there, other than pilots not misplacing paper charts.
Another question, if you aircraft was capable of achieving 231 feet/nm and you wished to climb to 1500 feet, why did it take 31 nms? Why not use extended second segment and climb to 1500 feet before accelerating? YOu would make less noise that way (i.e not hit the mountain.)
The last thing I would do is improvise the takeoff flight path profile in the event of OEI. TWA mandated clean-up at 1,000 feet, and that is what we did. (They used 800 feet in the earlier days). So, the 31 mile performance data they provided to our safety committee was based on clean up at 1,000. In any case, there is no way, no matter what you did, that 727 would have cleared the second range of mountains west of KLAS.
Next, a friendly poke at you engineers: in mountainous terrain their are more holes than in Swizz cheese in the calculation/guidance in the en route climb requirements from completion of the end of the takeoff flight path until reaching the effective minimum safe instrument altitude. And, Part 121 is ancient in still requiring 5 miles each side of centerline for OEI en route. On the one hand that regulation mandates only 300 feet each side centerline for the takeoff flight path, but it requires an absurdly wide 5 miles after the takeoff flight path. I don't see anyone doing an adequate job on the en route climb phase.
Finally, since I work with RNAV issues in my present life, we (industry and FAA) are constantly finding inconsistencies in FMS implementation issues across the larger fleet. And, in spite of what you imply, much of today's U.S. air carrier fleet consists of aircraft no more capable than the old-generation 767 I flew. In fact, one of the very big airlines cannot fly LNAV/VNAV IAPs because they don't train their crews because of these mixed fleet issues (i.e., a whole lot of the older segment of their fleet does not have GPS sensing, rather they have DME/DME updating which I used in 1984.) (The OEMs charge a fortune to update FMSes.)