The only real differences that matter for modelers is there are almost no 3 blades to try.

Matching a prop, any type, to an engine/plane combination really is mostly about blade area after you make a diameter choice and have a rough idea of pitch.

There are a number of really out of date things you will hear about 3 bladers.

"They are less efficient" is an example. The difference in efficiency is so insignificant it's a joke. In fact, a buddy just tried a 3 that was the same diameter and pitch of a 2 that was his last "good" test prop. He got a blast for doing something that "everyone knew was stupid". I wasn't the one blasting him, as I was the one who loaned him the prop and suggested he ignore conventional wisdom. It turned out to nearly pull the firewall out of the airplane. Why? Because you can't count on the pitch numbers on any model prop beyond a rough suggestion how that prop might work. And because all the BS about 3 blades is wrong, mostly because of the former. Why did that happen? Don't know for sure, but it looked like that engine on that plane simply needed more prop blade area. Fact is, it got more with the 3.

My AW Extra300's favorite two props are a 2 blade and a 3 blade. They both pull the sucker over 80mph if I want. And both pull straight up until I'm bored.

My warbirds all have 3 blades for two reasons. They look scale and after doing prop testing that was more than just trying a 2nd prop, those 3 bladers worked better. The only warbird that's been on radar was over 90mph. Efficiency? yeah right