CT - a B747 is more difficult and more challenging to fly than a PA28. Is it therefore a more dangerous aeroplane than the PA28?
Of course not. But that has a lot to do with the much greater reliability of jet engines, superior training, standardisation of procedures and the strength and redundancy built into the 747 compared to your average GA aircraft. The 'danger' comparison of the two has little to do with how hard they are to fly in the case of 747 vs. PA28.
The reason your statement is not relevant to this discussion is this:
When I said 'taildraggers are more dangerous than nosewheel aircraft' and 'my perception of risk increases slightly when I go flying in the Super Cub' I was drawing a direct comparsion between a GA type with a nosewheel and a GA with a tailwheel. Apart from the landing/take off they are the same; in the air they are both just as likely to have an engine failure, both have solid handling and are both as likely to be involved in a loss of control in VMC or any other accident that happens after take off/before landing.
The 747 however because it has many more engines, better system reliability and all the rest is inherently a safer plane.
Returning to the tailwheel vs. nosewheel I stick by what I said earlier:
Tailwheel aircraft are more likely to be involved in a take off/landing accident than a nosegear aircraft.
Who else is going to disagree with me? (Bearing in mind that I have the opinion of the US aircraft insurance industry on my side).
Edit:
As a little comparison:
When I did my FAA Sea Plane rating I was told that an amphibian was more than three times as likely to be involved in a landing gear related accident than a land based plane, reason being that the gear system is usually more complex and also that one has to remember to have the gear up for water and down for land. Does that make floatplanes dangerous? No. Does it make them
more dangerous than a land plane (if we treat them as the same in the air)? Well yes I suppose it does.