To the OP's question, I think I know the basic answer.
For longer retirement periods, heavier equity allocations will result in better survivability because stocks provide the long term antidote to the eroding power of inflation. For shorter retirement periods, adding some bonds will result in better survivability because they dampen the volatility which helps avoid the scenario of withdrawing from a temporarily ~40% depleted portfolio that then can't bounce back.
And by the way, it has been done before....long before. See the chart under the heading "Optimal Asset Allocation" here:
http://retireearlyhomepage.com/restud1.html(His studies were done using FIREcalc and a slightly older data set with a different inflation series, but the basic picture remains the same, I think.)
If you're 100% stocks your whole life, you might end up in a situation where adding bonds may increase your portfolio survivability, but you won't care because your natural withdrawal rate will be so low that it doesn't matter for you, so you might as well invest for the next generation and be, as the OP mentions, the richest person in the graveyard.
In fact this is precisely what I have done and it is so far working the way I expected...I'm 100% stocks and FI/OMY at age 45. Using the above graph and my planning horizon of 40 years, my optimal AA is something like 77/23, but even at 100/0 my 100% SWR is 4.08%, and my natural WR (what I spend naturally without caring about FI or SWRs) is around 3.8% and falling.