Is it universally accepted that prop clearance is better in tailwheel airplanes? Is that in reference to taxi and runup only? I have flown no tailwheel airplanes that takeoff efficiently from a three point attitude. The only prop strikes I have experienced, other than tumbleweed, were in tailwheel airplanes. I understand nose gear problems in soft ground, but also nose over with tailwheel. While CG ahead of the mains weighs heavy on the nosegear and makes braking on soft ground a mistake, heavier nose gear airplanes take advantage of heavy hydraulic braking on airports. Prop clearance is the same, tw or trike, during takeoff. Prop clearance is the same, tw or trike, during full stall landing. Prop clearance is less in tailwheel airplanes when we level the fuselage for wheel landing.

Contact's wrap sheet over 66 years and 17,000 hours:

C-140 landing run into flood water over runway and bent prop. This one would have been better than a trike if I had not used brakes.

Ercoupe solo student forced landing with no damage.

C-175 forced landing with no damage.

Pawnee hit fence on takeoff which swung plane into dozer pile for wreck and bent prop. This one would have been the same with trike.

Pawnee forced landing into soft conditioned crop field and over on nose. Bent prop. Did not use any brakes.

PA-12 very strong new owner locked up on controls and landed hard. Prop tip curl. This one slammed down three point but pitched over mains to catch prop even though I was able to get some power in. He had the stick full back and I couldn't budge it.

CallAir spraying Parathion poisoned me and I made a really sad forced landing still in a turn (very, very, late reaction) and cartwheeled it. Completely destroyed the entire airplane save left wing and enpinage. This one would have been the same with a trike.

Luscombe student caught the ground loop enough to straighten out but nosed over in higher grass off mowed strip. Brakes contributed to the nose over.

Taylorcraft solo student ground looped, collapsed right gear, caught wing tip, and bent prop. This one reduced damage by not using brakes.

Hyperbipe new builder/owner caught ground loop enough to straighten at angle to runway but his heavy hydraulic braking and small ditch put it on it's nose and bent prop.

Cardinal forced landing with cut in stabilator from steel fence post going into LZ. Yes, I use full flap and full brake to get into the beginning of the LZ.

C-152 forced landing with no damage.

To be fair, I had many off airport precautionary landings and forced landings with small tailwheel airplanes and spray planes with no damage.

From my experience, the major advantage of tailwheel was the ability to make a slow ground loop to get the sideloader valve pointed at the nurse rig and be pointed in the takeoff direction prior to loading. Remote loading areas were tight, especially county roads, and we wanted to land to the load and takeoff from the load. Spray planes are not designed to make taxi turns with a load comfortably.

65 to 90 HP airplanes, however, were light and could touch down slow enough to not be damaged in ground loop after just a short roll out no wind and near zero ground speed in any stiff wind. Excess ground speed requiring braking is the culprit in more tailwheel airplane prop strikes than in nose geared airplane prop strikes. Small tailwheel trainers also had very poor pre-hydraulic brakes to mitigate going over onto the prop with heavy braking. And yes, they force the best dynamic proactive rudder movement training on the student. It is truly the difference as in learning bicycle rather than tricycle. On the ground the tailwheel airplane is always in a state of imbalance that must be bracketed in every direction. Keeping the tail down is easier than keeping the nose bracketed, however. Just stay off the brakes as much as practicable.

From my experience, the major disadvantage of tailwheel was the horizontal and vertical imbalance of the center of gravity behind the mains. Tailwheel airplanes were not designed to move at great speed on the ground safely. We were expected to get them up quickly into level, low ground effect and down slowly and softly on the beginning of the landing area. In my experience with students, especially with good brakes, going on the nose was as prevalent as ground loop. We instructors can ride all the controls (not that we should) save brakes. Once activated aggressively, the physics of that weight finding the point of least resistance, up and over the top, cannot be put back in the box. By insisting on touching down as slowly and softly as physically possible, we tremendously mitigate both ground loop and roll over the top prop strike damage.

Please keep ‘em coming !