wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

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?

They do tend to be beter in rough fields for a few reasons. Noseheels end
to dig in a bit, especially if they're small, wheras the even smaller
tailwheel tends to ride up out of a soft runway. As you say, there's
generally better prop clearance as well. Tailwheel airplanes have generally
got more ample control surfaces and a proficient pilot can get better
crosswind performance because of that. The mains are usually the same size
as a comparable nosewheel airplane, though airplanes set up for the bush
and Cubs have low pressure tires, so that's not a factor.
The airplanes attitude at low speed is probably the biggest factor. Almost
as soon as you're moving with a taildragger you have a good bit of lift
from the wings and that lightens the load on the mains sooner than you
could do so with a trike.
On landing the three point attitude provides some aerodynamic braking that
slows you more quickly, but, OTOH, you can't brake quite as had as you do
with a trike.
Bottom line is there's not a whole lot of difference in performance or that
many advantages one way or another. Th eaccident record is worse, but
that's almost always down to pilot proficiency. I'm more comfortable in
taildragger when I'm current. I suppose the best comparison is that between
a bike and a car. Harder to keep a bike upright, but you have more control
over it when you do get "it"

Bertie