"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:c715ed23-26fe-4b49-b446-97156e319867
@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com:



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.

Direct contradiciton to a latter statement. Wow, who would have guessed?

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.

Has zip **** to do with a tail wheel.

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.

It's not relative here either.

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.

No it doesn't. Under full power you can get a trikes tail on the ground at
almost zero ground speed.
Who have you been talking to, MX?

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.

Have another drink.

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"


Learn to ride a bike. They stop quicker on soft fields, duh?

Bertie