You're quite right that the objective of the rewind was to lower the Kv and Rm simultaneously -- the former because the "weight of metal" in the stator is slight and the latter because it's always good, right?
Measuring Rm is not a simple game to play. You can use the variable load method such as:
... or you can kludge up a device such as:
Of course another method is to use the resistance constant for the wire, along with its length.
... or you can have access to a good engineering bench. But even so, results tend to be spotty and reports often -- perhaps usually -- don't lead to numbers that relate to observed reality "at the prop."
Kv and Io are pretty simple and usually fairly accurate. But one bad input variable is, of course, enough to mess with things.
Yes, that is the correct motor. The wire is so thin it's hard to be sure what it is, but a gentleman in France estimates 34 swg. Tripling it should give roughly 31g equivalence, so it's clear that by going to 24awg single strand I'm cutting the resistance a bit (as well as the "unequal circuit load" issue).
I understand you find my lack of faith in motor constants ... disturbing. This is not the result of a disdain for the theory so much as the experience of finding that the numbers usually don't describe reality, probably because of ineffective test methods. I'm just eliminating the middle man and measuring the actual output instead -- a sort of empirical approach. If you think that's shameful, I would refer you to Richard Feynman as an example of another shameful person. I can live with it.
Mr. Badcock does not limit his work to 20C at sea level. Those are input fields and you can adjust for local conditions. One thing I don't like is the adjustments don't allow for the current air pressure. Yes, the thrust and pitch speed are not directly used; they are just the cause of the variable load (my original point was that he is _not_ just using thrust).
I do not own a deNovo, nor can I see any point in getting one other than to subject it to testing, which is not a good enough reason when I already know it's an inefficient old design.
I do own the dLRK motor, and it is not commercially available. I made it, and it's a tough piece of work at that. But a roughly equivalent motor is commercially available -- the numbers for the Axi 2204/54 are pretty darn close.