skyjob, all,
Sky, while you included all kinds of illustrations, they are for all engine analysis. EO procedures are classed as emergency, and there is NO criteria for engine out missed or departure design.
Typically, the EO procedure will follow the straight segment to an altitude, but that is simply to standardize the EO procedure with the all engine, assuming that you go EO at minima, and to get you to the same point as the missed to clear, and for ATC to react and provide some assistance.
The EO procedures, beginning with the EO missed approach, are very complex in nature. Analysis begins with the aircraft climb perf, assuming the worst case variables for the climb. This is MLW, all bleeds on, and max temp at the airport.
There are many airports, terrain rich, or high altitude where an EO procedure is not possible. If you are EO enroute, you are diverting to an alternate, because you cannot go missed on approach.
With a coded procedure, EO missed is taken into account with the DA. Many people wonder why the standard approach has a 250 HAT, while the coded approach has a 1200 DA, and EO missed may be the reason.
As an example, at a certain airport in China, the EO missed is over 400nm long to get to the alternate. Terrain/obstacles were analyzed for the entire procedure.
Cuzco EO missed RW28?
EDIT, Terpster..the video you posted was very interesting, especially at around 11 mins and the FAA explanation of the EO procedure on the Jepp plate. I had no idea that the EO procedure, even though shown on the plate, was not FAA approved, that the individual airline had to engineer and approve itself to use this.