Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon
I would really like to see some evidence of this being true and that it isn't just a piece of pop-psychology.
|
Can I said the same thing about your first statement?
It's easy to realize that the probability to make mistakes is bigger doing "easy" things, while people are more careful doing things who can have unforgivable reactions.
It's called overconfidency. The easier is the task, the bigger is the probabilty of overconfidence.
http://www.readperiodicals.com/201201/2592264861.html
Quote:
When I would come home, conversations between my Dad and I would frequently drift to flying and his stories about friends he had lost in training and in combat meant even more to me. I too was seeing many pilots, very good pilots, make fatal mistakes. A lot of our discussions centered on the bad attitudes that can get one in trouble in the flying business: complacency, "get-home-itis," pressing minimum altitudes or separation distances, and overconfidence. The last one, overconfidence, intrigued me. As a young single-seat fighter pilot, I knew I needed to be confident in my skills to fly the airplane as aggressively as the situation required. But how could too much confidence in my skills get me in trouble?
As a 2Lt copilot in a B-26, my Dad's experienced and overconfident aircraft commander got too slow trying to climb over the top of a thunderstorm. He stalled the aircraft and put it into a flat spin. Only my Dad and one other crew member survived. Forty years later, when I was a 2Lt, one of my best friends was an extremely talented pilot and arguably had some of the best "hands" in the squadron. But his overconfidence bordered on recklessness, and it eventually killed him. As a single-seat fighter pilot, I knew I needed to be sure of my ability to fly the airplane, but I was determined to not let myself get overconfident and put myself in an untenable situation.
|
About my statement I realize that it's wrong, and I wrote something different from what I initially wanted... and still I'm not finding a way to put it down firstly in my first language.
Anyway It's OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtyphoon
Who said it and why? Ahhh, found it and, wouldn't you know it, it is being used in the context of the Spitfire VC v A6M2 over Darwin, when RAAF pilots discovered trying to out manœvre an aircraft which was even more manœvreable and handy in a dogfight was tactically futile. |
Don't change argument: it's not a statement related to the plane model... it's a general one about WW2 air warfare.
Anyway I love the way you keep posting only the parts that follow your agenda even if there are noone contesting it: it's a Zero's known issue the one about its high speed manouvrability...
Ah.., sorry I forgot: it's the "Look how better is my plane" agenda.