The age old question, plastic or wood?

Both have their merits. Over the years I have used both for different purposes. The plastics were generally better out of the box for entry level racing. For higher performance, a prop that would lend itself to modification to fit the airframe generally meant a wood prop.

For the beginner that will make ground contact with the nose of the aircraft frequently, the plastic prop is better for the owner. The wood prop would be better for the engine. By shattering upon impact, the wood prop better dissipates the energy of impact rather than transmit it through the engine. It may not be noticed at the time, but the engine WILL remember every one of those plastic prop strikes and have a shorter lifespan because of them.

For a faster engine spool up, I prefer wood props. They are generally lighter than plastics, and can be better balanced.

For a seriously cut hand or finger, requiring medical attention, the plastic props win every time.

For larger plane 3D flight, some plastic and C/F props are better. Bear in mind that a prop strike here may remove the engine and firewall from the fuselage, and will at least be an expensive replacement part. Much more than a wood prop.

Most plastics have a finite life cycle due to flex (imo). Eventually, the prop will fail by losing a blade. That's why they have a life limitation and TBO on full scale aircraft.

Overall, I prefer wood. But that's not to say wood will work best for all. Each plane/airframe/engine combination will work better with one type and size of prop over another. Only trial and error will find the right one.

Just my thoughts.