poor performance
I think one of the reasons that the "it wouldn't climb with an engine out" story came so common was actually that the aircraft obviously DID meet the requirement to be able to climb - but without much to spare most of the time! Most people (fortunately!) don't ever experience how low a gradient and how little clearance is actually required to meet the performance requirements - it is very little indeed!
Virtually all our experience is gained with all engines operating, and in circumstances where we are well within the limits of the performance envelope. In normal operation the Gripper unfortunately seemed to sit a lot closer to the edges of the envelope than most other types do. Fortunately at that time the ARB (predecessors to the CAA) used to require a sample of every fleet to be air tested each year to ensure that the overall performance was still typical of that demonstrated in initial certification. I suspect (I don't know) that's been jettisoned under JAA/FAA harmonisation of rules as the Americans certainly didn't like that idea, but I remember flying as P3 to Gordon Corps doing one of these recurrent air tests. (Gordon was CAA chief test pilot before joining Airbus in 1982, and a member of the SAE S-7 "what goes where" committee I referred to earlier (Post #117). One certainly realised how little climb capability was needed to meet the rules when seeing it demonstrated by someone like that - I was stunned by how precisely he could fly the aircraft straight off the ground when probably he hadn't been near one for over a year, and any "wobbles" away from the precise optimum speed would certainly affect the outcome.