That should depend very much on the type of aircraft, the training and experience of the people flying it, the type of flying that is done and the hours flown. It it is a rare type and special training requirements are met, there should be no difference given the same coverage and usage.

I think you misunderstand me.

As others have pointed out, there are lots of aircraft - e.g. the Maule, some Jodels - that come in both tailwheel and nosewheel versions. Assuming they have reasonably similar starting values, by comparing maule:maule; jodel:jodel you should be able to avoid the pitfalls of comparing taildraggers as a whole (including vintage and aerobatics types) to tricycle aircraft which by and large will be more staid.

I guess what you can't take into consideration is that the taildraggers will be more likely to be being operated from farm strips and unlicensed aerodromes which will be higher-risk.

...... though I have to say that the Chippy is not the lightest of aeroplanes to manoever single handed. Thank god for our converted ride on lawn mower!

Truth is that getting anything from the back of a full hanger is a pain, whatever it may be.

Lets face it, tail wheel - nose wheel is purely a matter of personal preference. What matters is the flying and if some feel more comfortable on the ground with a nose wheel, then fine. The important thing is to fly

Very true. I'd generalise it a little more and suggest that feeling comfortable in the air is also key to the TW/NW preference.

Personally I like nosewheels for general stuff and mucking/bimbling about. But my preference is the tailwheel purely because I have the luxury of actually flying the tailplane rather than it following me around blue yonder. Meaning for example that it feels more stable when deliberately adding a touch of top rudder when wanting to look at something slightly underneath the aeroplane perhaps; not sure if the manoeuvre has a name but I think of it as a 'nose high straight and level slip' if that's possible?!

If making a power available precautionary landing, or on soft snow, in a nose wheel aircraft, you can touch down gently on the mainwheels, with full flaps and full power' and gently lower the nosewheel . A taildragger would have the mainwheels come crashing down if you tried to land at minimum speed with full power.
PS the earliest aircraft didn't have wheels - that was a Glen Curtis innovation.

Where did you learn that method of landing Maoraigh1?

I can not recall ever trying that, especially on snow due to the difficulty of accurately judging my height.

I would be interested to know how the Swiss and Frence do it with their Cubs and Jodels on skiis. Tail down wheely?

Maoraigh1, what's to prevent a taildragger pilot coming in with power against drag for an equally gentle landing on the mains? Since probably most taildraggers designed in the last 60 years aren't in the stall attitude when 3 pointing why would they necessarily come crashing down?

Why would you need to land at full power in snow or soft ground in a tailwheel? I'm assuming you need to be careful in a nosewheel in order to avoid the nose digging in and flipping you over, but that just doesn't apply with tailwheel - the point is there isn't a nosewheel to dig in.

I've flown tailwheel off and back onto snow with no problem. Standard three pointer. In a classic tailwheel, such as a Cub, the touchdown speed is considerably less than the touchdown speed in say a C152. Same for nosewheel - standard flare keeping the nosewheel off until it comes down by itself, but this is no different to a normal landing. Won't fly retractable due to risk of bringing snow into gear bay and freezing them shut. But that's a different thread, probably.

Based on only a few trips experience with reasonable snow on a paved runway, so willing to hear explanations of where this might be wrong (not flames)

If you are attempting to land at anywhere near full power, regardless of the surface, if you can even get the plane into a controlled descent, you are going to bang on the tail first, then mains, regardless of the configuration.

Landing in unbroken snow is a whole different thing - be it tricycle, or taildragger, skis or wheels. If you get into deep snow, you have a better hope in the taildragger, but it is still heading to be bad. I tested a 150HP C150 taildragger skiplane into 18" of loose power snow during certification flight testing. It was not taking off from that snow, no matter what I did. I gave up, and taxiied for the plowed runway.

There are a very few pilots on Proon who know how to land on unbroken snow of unconfirmed depth, and they know who they are. If you are not one of them, just do not do it, regardless of the plane or landing gear. Nosing over either aircraft type is quite likely.

Taildraggers work better on skis, as the use of power tends to lift the tail out, otherwise it drives the nose ski in deeper.

Of course, it could be said that the use of conventional gear adds class to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl.

:)

Exercise on a dual checkout in Colorado, in a C150. Full flap. My recollection is that I was at full power. Said to be usefull for a soft snow landing if there is no choice - no intention of taking off again. I've never had to do it for real
(After doing it gently, on next attempt I was told to go around, after roundout. Lift drag flap only, build speed, climb away. Wheels not to touch runway.)
I mentioned a precautionary landing, (eg to avoid IMC), when a tailstrike will possibly do less damage than hitting ground objects. (eg to avoid IMC)

Probably not at full power. Depending upon the prop pitch installed, any power more than 2100 RPM, and you will not be descending, unless you are fully stalled. If you did a full flaps full power stall descent in a 150 to close to the ground, we'd be having a different thread about you here.

Yes, you'd carry power and full flaps for the precautionary landing, but 1800 RPM at the most in a 150. A precautionary landing onto unbroken snow is a really bad idea for anyone on wheels, and not too much better on skis, for the inexperienced. If you have flown into conditions where it got to that as being the better choice, you got it all wrong!