Flew the 727 extensively, and in operations way beyond the scope of regular airline operations (airshows, formation flying, instruction in the aircraft), including post-maintenance test flying with speeds down to 96 knots to test the stick shakers. F30 and F40 landings. F40 did require a very different landing technique, quite like a turbo-prop flare, with much later power reduction and more developed flare. Abnormally high rates of descent were not a feature of F40 approaches. F40 restriction in many operations was simply noise-related. landing technique could vary between pilots, though conventional landings were easily achieveable, if finely judged, though the late push and roll it on method was easy to do and reliably produced beer-winning results.
As previously mentioned, landing performance, without NLG brakes, could be dramatic...not much over 500m at very light weights.
Due respect had to be made of the lengthy spool-up time for the engines, but considering this, and flying at book speeds, safety was never an issue. High rates of descent could be developed, but were due to lack of anticipation by the pilot, usually resulting in getting a bit slow (typically in the flare) and continuing to raise the nose and letting the 35-odd degrees wing sweep generate a lot of drag, while reducing thrust to land...always a filling-popper.
The whole 'unrecoverable deep stall thing is a myth'. Recovery from the stall could be protracted, granted, but to get there in the first place you would have to have been completely insensitive to the developing problem, starting with the heavy aft elevator input required and pronounced buffet.
It was a fantastic thing to fly, particularly where you had a day out doing visual approaches, and would reward planning and skill. Equally, if you flew like a moron, it showed you up.
TM
PS The comment relating to high climb angles being a result of the T tail is sheer bollocks and ignores basic thrust to weight considerations.