Here's a pretty nice site with an extensive discussion on such matters:
http://www.taildraggers.com/Documentation.aspx
As you might expect, I do not subscribe to all the techniques as exactly described at that website, but they contribute to a good overview, and I endorse most of what is recommended there.
I do disagree with the discussion regarding take off technique and suggestions to "disregard" airspeed during takeoff.... as well as the suggestion/recommendation that wheel landings are unnecessary and should not be used (per Gene Lehman, now deceased.)
I do not agree that it's good technique to "force" the tail up during takeoff. I know that some folks like to do this, and if the runway is especially rough I've been known to do it also to protect the fragile tailwheel/suspension. But generally it is not a good idea.
If the tail is "forced" to come up before it is normally ready to fly on it's own.... then the tailwheel is no longer in contact with the ground, available for steering. (The elevators have twice the area and twice the effectiveness of the rudder. The elevators are capable of raising the tail at speeds too slow for equally-effective rudder, and therefore the directional control of the airplane is unnecessarily at risk.)
I usually hold the elevators full up/back to keep weight on the tailwheel until the airspeed indicator registers forward speed. This provides maximum steering capability from the tailwheel as well as provides resistance to x-winds due to tailwheel (still in it's steering detent) contact with the ground. As the airspeed builds I nuetralize the elevators to allow them to streamline with relative wind. Since the horizontal stabilizer/elevators assembly is at positive angle-of-attack, the building airspeed eventually provides sufficient lift to the nuetral elevators to raise the tail. Conveniently this is indicative of increasing rudder authority as well. (If the tail flies on it's own...it has become sufficiently effective to depend upon rudder for directional control.) Continuing the takeoff, the aircraft angle-of-attack will continue to reduce as the tail gains flying authority/lift. This brings the nose down towards the horizon, and a perceptive pilot will notice the main gearlegs begin to support a greater amount of aircraft weight because the cabin appears to "sink" as the weight spreads the main gearlegs. (Now that the tail is supporting it's own weight, the aircraft CG has shifted more forward.) A glance at the airspeed indicator will show the airplane ready to fly and a slight "positive rotation" by bringing the yoke back/elevators up will result in a positive angle-of-attack (AOA) and a nice lift-off. (Hint: Don't rotate too early. Wait for that little "sink", or AOA reduction that occurs after the tail comes up on it's own. This occurs a few seconds
after the tail is self-supporting.)
Next time you taxy out, notice the nuetral point of your yoke as the elevator counter-balance horns are streamlined with the horizontal stabilizer. You will notice that your yoke is in the central position...your knuckles about even with the doorpost..... a great reference point to place your yoke during takeoff roll if you should decide to try this technique.
Notice that this technique also agrees with factory recommendations in that it provides a "tail low" attitude for takeoff. (The tail is in the air due to it's natural lift, but not being forced up to a completely level angle of attack during takeoff roll.)
Not forcing the tail up will avoid several common errors/risks:
The tail is not forced into the air before rudder effectiveness takes place.
Forward over-rotation is avoided (and the associated dangers of nose-over due to inadvertent brake applications prior to effective elevator which can be used to prevent nose-over.
"Forcing" the tail up also exposes the elevators to possible damage due to foreign object damage (FOD) from the runway blown back by prop-wash. (To "force" the tail up places the elevators down closer to the ground during early takeoff, and is contrary to keeping the yoke fully back to maintain tailwheel steering.)
The aircraft wings produce sufficient lift to support flight at slower speeds, thereby avoiding unnecessary wear on tires, prop-tip erosion due to FOD and minimizing runway useage, thereby reducing the time exposed to side-loads on the gear.
The technique also provides a good indicator of the aircraft's readiness for flight. (If the tail will fly naturally, so will the airplane if AOA is increased. While the airplane may lift off at slighty higher speeds than is possible in a 3-point lift-off, it provides better directional control and avoids hopping takeoffs which may expose the airplane to abuse and loss of control risks. This avoids the risk of the airplane departing the runway at less-than-optimum speeds in gusty conditions, which may result in re-contact with the runway.)
Just my suggestion. I hope you'll try it. Don't forget to hold the yoke fully back until the airplane begins good forward movement (gives you a chance to confirm takeoff RPM is achieved) and keep ailerons into any cross-winds.
As for the other website's contributor's suggestion that wheel landings are unwise/unsuitable and that "other" landing runways should be used in strong x-winds that suggest the use of wheel-landings.... I disagree that "other" landing sites are always available or otherwise desireable. Sometimes we want to land at places that do not have runways conveniently aligned with winds, and wheel-landings are useful in those circumstances.
A good aviatior will be proficient in both 3-point and wheel landings, and in winds aligned with runways and in cross-winds. Neither type landing is "universal" in all circumstances and that is why you need to have both types in your repertoire.
Whichever technique you decide to use at the moment.... Keep that stick back until ready to fly, and also immediately after the tailwheel is allowed onto the ground.
