Thanks for all the replies so far- keep 'em coming!
Ok so so far, the sizes picked are pretty even across the board.
I wasn't expecting that at all!
Especially on the low end of the scale, it's interesting to see there looks to be real interest in the very tiny 13mm and below sizes.
SO what does this all mean?
Not sure, but it has helped me tremendously to decide on the form factors I'd try to target no matter what gadget i decide to make:
1- Micro-scale- i don't know it its the economy, but there seems to be an explosion in interest in micro-maxx and midget sizes from BT-2 to BT-20.
Thats cool- and so a line of very low cost and tiny "flea-size" devices might be worth doing.
I think there's a lot of functions that can be crammed into really tiny boards that might fit in a BT-2.5 .
- or a "typical" full-featured device that fits in a BT-3 (8-1/2mm) or BT-4 (10-1/2mm).
I'll look into that.
2- For real advanced stuff like telemetry, GPS, video etc., I'm thinking that 29mm should be the optimum size to target, from your votes, and because there are clearly motors available that can take a min-dia rocket this size to over 10,000 feet, with a few people doing occasional record attempts at this size.
I can pretty much make anything fit in 29mm, without too many compromises in terms of connectors and features.
I was on the fence about trying to target 24mm, but even with the new AT 24/60 'F' motor i just don't imagine there's be many people wanting to do a min-dia. screamer that size (with telemetry etc.), and i can use the extra space so that the 29mm version would be shorter in length and significantly easier to make & use.
Of course, i reserve the right to change my mind. (especially if there is a significant amount of prodding to do so

)
Another thing i'm thinking about doing is a square form factor that will fit on a 75mm bulk plate- and then constrain all the circuitry and parts in a 54mm circle (user can trim the board to that line).
That should appeal to anyone doing high-performance minimum dia. stuff at those two sizes or larger.
It might even be possible to do something like that at 38mm but with some features removed. Any opinions on that folks?
3-In much larger sizes, it seems there would be less need for telemetry/ GPS etc- even an 'M' motor in a 12" airframe for example will only get to a few thousand feet, and be easily visible the whole time.
And there's plenty of altimeters and such on the market already that are suitable for larger airframes.