Maybe someone could make one that is engine specific by popular control line engines.
Maybe, but we have already been doing what you really need to know, essentially, publishing various complete setups with all the necessary details. Even for a particular engine, it depends on a lot of other factors. I have extensively run two different systems on the 40VF, the original first-generation system that uses a 12-3.25 Bolly 2-blade depitched from a 12-6, and Paul Walker's, which uses a 11.3-4.25 which uses a cut-down 11.75-4.25 Bolly. Never mind that neither of these props are easily available today, but the rest of the system and the way it operates is completely different.
Change the venturi by .005, and you might want a different prop or a completely different everything else. My system runs significantly differently if it uses Powermaster RO-Jett 10%, Powermaster "Air" 10%, and won't run properly at all on Powermaster GMA 10%, to the point that I adjust the percentage of each fuel type to get the run I want. If I go to Tucson, I run Powermaster YS 20/20, along with .35" of additional pitch.
So you have to specify all the relevant parts. There have been multiple examples of that, including the SN article that delineated most of the current competitive systems in exquisite detail. If you haven't seen your chosen combination, then it's probably because not enough people with the right kind of knowledge have used it and come up with something they know will work.
I ran a os35FP iron-liner engine in the ST46 era, but I didn't run it enough to determine if it was as good as you could do, or whether it was repeatable from engine to engine, so I would never post my notes on it. This is the case with most of the vintage and erzatz engines people come up with, like (for example purposes only) a Brat 28. It runs OK, but as far as I know, no one with the necessary knowledge has ever attempted to develop a system for it. Maybe it's the best stunt engine ever and will make us all forget about the PA75, but we will never know that unless people with the necessary knowledge spend a lot of time working on it. And no, you CANNOT make a fair evaluation of 6 different engines in an afternoon (since there is a moderately well-known engine reviewer who does/did exactly that). It takes months or years of careful work.
BTW, in case this seems like a modern development, even when such things were published in the 50's-60's, when all engines were attempts to recreate the Fox 35, it still wasn't right or very useful and had similar problems. If you look in the "35" slot you would see "9x5-10x6", and if anyone thinks those provide equivalent performance on, say, a Nobler, then you need to go out and try it and find out for yourself. Similarly, a Y&O 10x6 and a Top Flite 10x6 were hardly equivalent, either.
Generally, you run 4" of pitch or so on modern engines, and 6"ish on vintage and "retro" engines, with correspondingly different launch RPM.
Brett
p.s. another factor is the fact that in the good old days, the engines varied so much from example to example that you couldn't realistically come up with one system that someone else could reliably repeat - meaning that publishing the setup didn't make any difference, or at best only gave you a notion what to do with *your* particular engine. Most of the current modern engines are also dead-nuts repeatable from copy to copy, and if you set up your engine the way David does, it's probably going to run the same way.