There are the published findings on certain airfoils, designs, etc that are available too. Most of this has already been done, wind tunnel tested, and documented. Tapered, double tapered, wingtip dihedrals, AOA, etc all have predictable properties. I don't have the links anymore to the NASA databases where you could read about all of airfoil properties, stability findings, etc. Then, there are the books. Getting in the ballpark for a given pattern design wouldn't be all that difficult if some research was done first to get the fundamentals. I think the fine tuning aspect would be where some trial and error would be involved if one was looking for what they considered to be their ideal pattern plane.

Marcelo Columbo of CA Models has mentioned a little of his process to refine the Widebody design when he came out with the Epsilon. He was after better snaps and knife edges. It is interesting to see the evolution of his designs when he tells his goals.

It was mentioned that pattern has evolved to a certain stage of performance and stays there because it is good enough. I don't really agree with that. I think that the vanes people are calling side force generators has been overlooked for decades. Now, Hangar 9 has a plane using that along with the gaudy advertising. A guy gave me a banged up Somethin Extra where he had found that a little fin (or vane) on the landing gear helped knife edges. Same principle. Also, I think that fuselage bottoms are a victim of looks instead of functionality. Some things have been written about improving knife edges by modifying this shape. These are only a couple of things that are probably ignored for better precision flight. But, significant improvements in pattern design would probably mean significant styling changes too.