Originally Posted by
Gaston444
The fact is, as I pointed out before, everywhere a pitch increase is mentionned by real pilots it means an increase in the blade pitch angle.
As has been mentioned above, a propellor control is marked 'Increase' for a forwards movement and 'Decrease' for a rearwards movement because these increase, or decrease, the prop RPM by either decreasing or increasing the prop blade angle, or setting a new balance point for the governor's flyweights against the spring load inside the governor. This is as prescribed by airworthiness requirements and has been in use since before WWII. You'll also have to take into account that there are many different prop controls that have been used throughout the 20th century, eventually settling on hydromechanical constant speed units. What these all have in common is that the control is related to the parameter that the pilot can influence, which is the propellor RPM. So any mention of 'increase' or 'decrease' should be read as relating to this parameter. If you insist on using a secondary effect, then prop drag could be one, as increasing the prop's RPM and thereby decreasing the blade angle (either directly or through the CS unit) will increase the drag that the prop adds to the equation, but which is also dependent on throttle setting. So you could have a pilot state that he increased the drag of the prop, by moving the lever forward.
You mention that you are trying to get us to accept a specific statement. Please keep in mind that the accepted flight physics have been like this for many more years than I've been playing with aeroplanes, because everyone involved, from humble pilots all the way to some very eminent researchers, have been able to prove that a specific model and the actual behaviour of the aircraft match. I get the idea from your posts that your assumption only fits when we are willing to accept some pretty abstract constructs that don't match with what we, as pilots, instructors, lecturers, have come to know and understand over the course of our careers. Please don't take this the wrong way, but from a basic research standpoint it could mean that your theory needs some more work.