Oh dear. I've not read every post on here, but I'm rather saddened at the tenor of much of the comment. I'm not commenting to specifically defend the lady in question, but I would like to make a few general points to put the often quite rude and cynical comments here into some sort of factual perspective.
Firstly, even in the real pioneering days before the war, not everyone had access to unlimited personal wealth to fund their little adventures. Sponsorship was commonplace, and yes, even then, sponsors wanted - quite reasonably - their 'Pound Of Flesh'. Often, pilots would set-out already in debt. Success, fame of some sort, was required to stimulate interest for newsreels, radio, lectures, articles and books, as well as paid talks and personal-appearances etc. Sound familiar...????? You bet.
People also often forget just how meteoric progress was after the Great War. All the serious pioneering flights really took place in the 1920's. As we move into the 1930's, flights are made, more typically, for self aggrandisement. That is not a criticism - merely a fact. Many - some may say most, of the 'epic' flights made during the 1930's didn't
prove anything, other than the skill or boldness/recklessness of the crews. The five years or so between 1934 and 1939 were a complete game-changer. By the start of the war, aircraft were being built in Canada and then the US - and ferried to the ETO. Firstly by experienced Ferry Command Crews, then by kids who had very few hours. Ironically, some of those 1930's pilots who had gained so much fame/publicity, were involved, at first, with this ferrying, and almost forgotten. Some, like Scott and Mollison and Johnson to die, miserably in obscurity during and after the war. Their recent exploits of taking weeks to fly somewhere in canvas biplanes eclipsed by the routine of flying the Atlantic in large metal a/c with RNAV, in a few hours, by kids hardly out of school who were probably virgins without even a Driving Licence.
The point here is that technology had already far surpassed the a/c the 1930's 'Pioneers' were using, even by the outbreak of the war in 1939. Not all, but generally.
Imperial Airways were already serving the Commonwealth, and in the US, a very efficient and technically advanced network of aircraft, airlines and mail routes were well-established (Read E.K Gann for the full SP.). That is not in any way to diminish the flights of the 1930's lone fliers - it's just a basic fact commonly overlooked, that even back in the 1930's, many of these flights were not 'proving' anything. They were seeking self-agrandisement. Nor was sponsorship absent.
When the war ended in 1945, aviation was totally and utterly transformed from only ten years before. Gone were the canvas biplanes. We had pressurised a/c, jet-engines, RNAV, networks of paved airfields. The days of the lone pioneers in ordinary light aircraft 'proving' anything were over. Utterly.
Fast forward to today. Eighty years or so later, that we can exceed the performances of the pre-war jockeys is a given. In strict terms, there is nothing left to prove. All the flying is easier, GPS alone has ensured that. Time has moved-on. The 1920's and '30's has long gone - and even the pilots themselves, but at least we can read their accounts and marvel at the exploits of that earlier age.
So what of today. Do we belittle individuals because they didn't carry out a flight in accordance with how it was in 1921 or 1934...? We should not - it's 2016 FFS. Why take risks that today we would regard as stupid and reckless. One known sick engine, no radios, no dinghy, no life-jackets over the Shark-infested Sea of Timor...? But hey, in 1934, Scotty was wearing his 'Plus Fours' - and a flat-cap...!
One sometimes sees suggestions that perhaps modern facilities should be eschewed to make a flight more 'authentic/real/valid' etc. This argument disappears up it's own trouser leg. Where does one draw the line.....? Are we trying to belittle the achievements of the past..?
I think we should accept the achievements of the past. They stand. They proved their points in the context of the time. What does it prove to emulate them today, using the same methodology? Nothing whatsoever - the point was long made. Would one be trying to prove oneself 'better' than the original actors...? That would be pretty egotistical and pathetic to be sure.
If on the other hand, people just want to go out and have an adventure, fine - please don't knock them by churlish comparisons. Equally, don't be too harsh on those having to please sponsors.
(Remember, even the great CWA Scott was to be seen 'modelling' the clothes of his sponsors - and looking very awkward too....!).
Those who fly
know the score. They know just how different were the circumstances eighty years ago - and that is enough. That folks today should still wish to makes epic flights in light aircraft, we should celebrate, not denigrate them because they didn't conform to some fetishistic, anoraky standard of emulation.
As I said at the outset, I'm really speaking in general terms here, not specifically about this Ms.Taylors flight.
(I also suspect that some of the derogatory comments made in this thread were not even made by pilots.).
Lastly, as a couple of others have pointed-out, there are many bold flights made today - and yet they receive nary a mention. Several people flew to Oshkosh from the UK this year, one
solo in an RV, from Sleap I think (Well-done that man...!). The real achievement today, is that such flights should be so much safer - and hardly require comment...
