On Jul 7, 10:05*am, wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:43 am, wrote:

Other than the 'holier than thou' aspects of taildraggers and their
pilots, what are their real advantages? Has it to do with prop
clearance on unimproved fields, or fatter mains being better in that
same environment? Does anyone know if, with the same level of
experience pilots, they have a better or worse accident record when
compared to airplanes of the same general size that have the tailwheel
under the engine?

* * * * *Less tendency to flip over on soft fields than trikes. The
taildragger's mains are not far forward of the CG, and the trikes
nosewheel is a LOT further forward, so you can see, if you imagine a
pole-vaulter, that the trike's nosewheel will get more and more weight
shoved onto it when it starts to dig in, while the taildragger's mains
get only a little. Besides that, the taildragger has a nose-high
landing attitude that makes the wings lift the airplane and reduce the
weight on the wheels until much lower speeds are reached. All of this
applies for takeoff, too, though the trike's nose can be lifted under
power to get it out of the mud.

* * * * * * * Dan

The nose high landing can be done with a trike, of course, but there's
no doubt most trike drivers come in too hot. I don't do sod fields
with my old Mooney because even if I do drag the tail on when the nose
wheel settles the prop is way too close to the ground.

I do think one can lift off in the same distance no matter if the
extra wheel is in the front or the back, but the extra weight could be
a minor factor.

Thanks for the insights, Max and Dan

Hadn't thought about the extra weight