What are the advantages and disadvantages of tail wheels that cause modern airplanes to not use them? Photos' source: Cessna 140 and Cessna 150.

According to Wikipedia here, the Cessna 150 is successor of Cessna 140. Both have two-seat capacity and a single engine.

Why was the Cessna 150 changed to tricycle landing gear from the "old school" tail wheel? If we consider that the two airplane models have the same weight and capacity, then what are the advantages/disadvantages of tail wheels vs. tricycle landing gear? Why are so few new tailwheel aircraft produced?

Note:
I mentioned the Cessnas here solely because I knew their story better, so I can more easily compare them. This question should not be considered specific to only Cessna's products.
A tailwheel is a good choice for operation on unprepared surfaces with aircraft that have low wing loading and need to be as light as possible. Two main wheels and a small tail wheel weigh less and cause less drag than a tricycle gear, especially if they cannot be retracted. On the Bo-209 Monsun only the nose gear was made retractable because, being positioned right behind the prop, it caused 40% of gear drag all by itself.

On the other hand, high wing loading aircraft with their high landing speed would need very long landing runs due to their inability to brake hard. A rejected take-off close to the decision speed would be impossible without crashing through the airfield perimeter. Braking too hard with a tailwheel configuration will cause a headstand.

To summarise the reasons given in this answer:


A tricycle gear offers better visibility on the ground.
A tricycle gear allows full brake application.
A tricycle gear makes loading and unloading easier because the fuselage is horizontal.
A tricycle gear has less drag during the initial stage of a take-off run.


Cessna simply shifted priorities between the 140 and the 150.