RE: strong 25
I think that might be oversimplifying the issue. A cordless drill can have more torque than a .50, but it can only produce that torque at low rpm because it produces less horsepower. Torque is not a rate at which work can be done, it is only a measure of force. Torque times rpm equals horsepower, and that is the rate at which the work gets done and that ultimately translates into how fast the motor can drive the aircraft.
A really effective way to get more horsepower out of a motor is to let it spin faster, increasing the number of intake and combustion cycles per second and thus the rate at which fuel is consumed and thus the rate at which work is done. Of course the motor has to be designed/setup to do so. Asking a .50 for example to be ported/timed to produce peak horsepower at 10,000 rpm might give you a nice torquey motor for turning larger load propellors, but it is not going to produce as much peak horsepower as the same motor setup to peak at 18,000 rpm and burning proportionally more fuel per second, and it won't ultimately drive the same aircraft as fast no matter what propellor you install.
Listing horsepower or torque figures at a specific rpm still gives you the same information in the end. Listing either without the rpm at which it is produced tells you little to nothing. The big problem with published horsepower figures (and I think this is where you're coming from anyway and I **wholeheartedly** agree if so) is the fact that they appear in marketing literature, and as such are subject to both creative interpretation and exaggeration. In other words many of those figures are BS!
Mike D.