Originally Posted by Like This - Do That
Isn't there also a small efficiency penalty in having a nosewheel in the immediate path of the thrust produced by the propellor? Add to that the increased weight of nosegear vs. tailwheel .....
The Columbia 300 series seems to do OK with a nosewheel - the top of the range model has a 235 kt cruise.
Frankly, with an aircraft like a Pitts, there's so much drag from the wings and wires that a nosewheel wouldn't really matter. Efficiency is about converting fuel into distance or speed. Aerobatics is about converting fuel into fun. But as others have pointed out, a large prop really needs a tailwheel, and a nosewheel or retractable gear simply adds weight, compared to a tailwheel fixed gear configuration. So most aerobatic aircraft are tailwheel, fixed gear. The modern crop of aerobatic monoplane aircraft tend to be relatively slippery and accelerate very quickly going downhill. And drag can be helpful in aeros - gives you more time on the downline.
Which is why an aircraft like the Siai Marchetti SF260 is lovely to look at and fly, but won't win many aerobatic contests...