Wasn't that the MTB group or something?
This one? (Links to Youtube.)
Edit: I actually noticed another engine in the post jwasko made, in the guide by rhino-aus, the NSR 3005 Shark, crazy specs that one has! My only concern is with engines that reach such a high RPM (40,000), do get that torque of 210g/cm over a wide range or only at that RPM? If the latter is true, wouldn't an engine achieving 30K-35K RPM and 210g/cm torque be better suited than one that does 210g/cm torque at 40K RPM?
Ohi! It's me; that flywheel obsessed guy from MTB!
The trade off between RPM and torque is the stored energy and the stored energy recovery rate. The difference between Shark 40Ks and the MTB Rhino motors we are about to start distributing is practically minimal. The MTB Falcons are designed to handle 15 darts per second which is way more than any pusher motor can possible fire out of a Rapidstrike. The higher RPM of Sharks could allow for a sustained ROF of 18 darts per second but even the old ultra high RPM Ranson motors in the pusher only get about 12.
Using the maths and simulation i developed for that paper you get the following results:
A Shark will spool up to its stable 18 DPS RPM in 0.21 seconds
A MTB Rhino will spool up its stable 15 DPS RPM in about 0.22 seconds
The soonest you can fire a 120fps dart out of a Shark is 0.19 seconds
The soonest you can fire a 120fps dart out of a MTB Rhino is 0.2 seconds
tl;dr Sharks are "better" but the performance gain is absolutely minimal; particularly for motors that will cost about 4-5x as much.