The pilot of the tailwheel-equipped airplane reported that, he landed on the main wheels, and while waiting for the tailwheel to drop, the "tailwheel jammed." He added, that when the tailwheel touched down, the airplane was difficult to control, and veered to the left. He corrected for the veer, but the airplane veered to the right. He then did a go-around, however, once airborne the airplane "did not appear to be producing proper power." He then aborted the go-around, and opted to land on the remaining runway. About 25 ft. above the runway, he set the airplane up for a wheel landing and descended. When the airplane was about 5-10 ft. above the runway, the airplane "abruptly" sank, landed hard and collapsed the main landing gear. Subsequently, the airplane came to rest nose down on the runway.

The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.

During a telephone interview, the pilot reported that he believed the tailwheel had jammed prior to touchdown, and that he had previously re-designed and altered the tailwheel. Further, the airplane produced insufficient power during the go-around. He reported that, the tailwheel was mechanically "okay" when inspected after the accident.

Additionally, an airframe and powerplant mechanic reported that he inspected the tailwheel assembly after the accident, and found no defects and no binding.

The pilot reported the weather at the accident airport, about the time of the accident to be, wind from 320° at 10 knots, gusting to 12 knots. The pilot landed on runway 31.

Photographs taken at the accident site showed torsional twisting of the propeller, consistent with the engine producing power at the time of impact. The National Transportation Safety Board did not examine the engine.