ORIGINAL: rodney tanner
Thrust doesn't seem to be our problem, our models are very light compared to IMAC planes for example, thus we don't need big dia'/low pitch.
I am a Pattern flyer also flying IMAC and also prefer higher pitch props on gas engines. (DA 100L - Menz 26x12 at 7,000 ft ASL) for lower noise and constant flying speed. I also think it improves penetration at high altitudes, say compared to a 27x10. But my Extra 260 QB is a 75cc 32% weighing 22lbs. So I agree with the above on the question of weight.
I also tend to think that Pattern pilots tend to know how to trim planes better than the average IMAC flyer, without a Pattern background. ie the benchmark is how a Pattern plane flies.
For smaller diameter props, say less than 22", a 12" pitch seems to be a magical pitch for best all around performance compromise (thrust/speed, penetration, noise). Not sure that holds for larger diameter props too but it may. According to Rodney Tanner is seems to
Many (but not all) IMAC planes nowadays are wing loaded about the same as the better pattern planes and actually perform at least as well on the available power. IMAC designs often need more work to fly in a pattern-like manner but that's doable too. Patternlike performance is mainly had by longer tail moments, as much as 1/3 longer for pattern models, which make a model really groove. A tail moment that is only 2 X MAC or less sported by almost all IMAC planes will not groove as well as one that is 3 X MAC sported by most pattern planes