I Like it, Larry!
The simple socket will be dandy in a profile.
As far as the utility of both-end mounting is concerned, I have to disagree with my buddy Rudy on this one.
Yeah ... SO FAR, the motors that do not have the extra circumferential bearing like the big Hackers and the Plettenbergs are responding well to being front-mounted rather than rear-mounted.
That is: bearing life is much better. How much better? The jury is still out. I'd like to see 500 flights or more before bearing replacement is needed, and we are up to maybe 200 as compared to 75 or so with a rear/firewall mount.
Then we move on to the other half of the issue! Surely the gyroscopic forces are great, otherwise armature scuff and the coning-out of the bearings in firewall mouted installations wouldn't have been a problem.
Front mounts will put a great deal of stress on that tiny mounting ring near the front of the fuse. Norm Whittle's solution with the annular inlet is brilliant, because it sidesteps all the problems that would result from a nose-ring mount if you had a pair of "scale-like" cheek inlets on either side of the plane, just aft of the mounting ring. Now, the fuse-front would flex at these holes. The pattern guys had front-mounted motors rip the nose-rings right out of the fuselage at this same weak point! Granted, these were fiberglass/composites with some flexibility inherent, and the flexibility allowed gyroscopic/wobble/nutating resonances to develop. I once watched such a resonance tear the motor and nosering out of an airplane on the ground during a test runup ... first we heard a funny noise, and in the time it took for me to turn to my buddy Dave and ask, "Do you hear that too?", the whole nose turned to scrambled eggs..
Granted, "Balsa flies better" and I expect wooden fuselages to be stiffer, but with all the weight-saving we do in the fronts of our E-Stunters, I think that a light rear-mount to damp any wobbles and resonances is a prudent idea.
until later,
Dean P.