Would smaller cranks not be more aero and also provide less of a dead spot due to the smaller distance they have to cover?
The dead spot is a function of angle, not distance. The proportion of the circle in which you're not applying much torque is essentially the same regardless of the diameter of the said circle.
On the aero question, the cranks themselves are pretty irrelevant, but the reduced hip articulation angle from short cranks might allow body positions not viable with long cranks, which has the potential for aero gains. Of course, the real short-crank obsessives are recumbulent riders, where short cranks allow the whole nose cone of the fairing to be substantially reduced in size, giving big reductions in CdA.
The dead spot is a function of angle, not distance. The proportion of the circle in which you're not applying much torque is essentially the same regardless of the diameter of the said circle.
On the aero question, the cranks themselves are pretty irrelevant, but the reduced hip articulation angle from short cranks might allow body positions not viable with long cranks, which has the potential for aero gains. Of course, the real short-crank obsessives are recumbulent riders, where short cranks allow the whole nose cone of the fairing to be substantially reduced in size, giving big reductions in CdA.