Hi, Many thanks. Unfortunately it will only save it as an art image or a bitmap and for some reason or another I am only seeing a blank picture!

I sometimes get that too, it usually happens when a page has been open for a few minutes. Try reloading the page, scroll straight to the images and right-click on them. When you select Save image as… it should now give you a name and the ability to save as a JPEG.

Another interesting Shack site here: http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/

Quick scan from an old magazine I dug up. This is the photo I remember, showing Gorgeous George-Ann at Deelen Airbase, The Netherlands in 1978. Photo by P. v/d Horst.

Added some links to my post above.

Ahh, got confused on the NW one there! Allright, I think I’ve got it sorted now:

So for the Hanover Street examples that gives (did a bit of forum searching and Googling):

Gorgeous George Ann (NL9494Z previously flown as ‘Laiden Maiden’ in Catch22) – Derelict at Sandtoft
Big Bad Bonnie (N9455Z previously flown as ‘Tokyo Express’) – Returned to the US, now at Chino as a restoration project
Amazing Andrea (N7681C, ex-Catch22) – Destroyed in Le Bourget Fire
Brenda’s Boys (N86427 later ‘Miami Clipper’) – Now in a museum at Madrid
Marvellous Miriam (N9115Z ex-Catch22) – RAF Museum Hendon

The example at North Weald is ex N9089Z, flown for the movies The War Lover & 633 Squadron, stored since 1964 it was actually owned by Jeff Hawke for a year in 1983 but now as G-BKXW with TFC according to the Warbird Registry.

I guess this ties in with the Hanover Street thread here. I seem to recall we also had another thread which listed the careers of the aircraft after the movie? Or am I getting confused with the Catch-22 aircraft now?

I seem to remember that Gorgeous George-Ann was also flown on at least one airshow, since I saw a photo of it doing a low pass somewhere. Does that mean that at least two B-25s stayed around after the filming was complete?

I’ve got some images of this project in a book about GE, basically it is indeed a twist on a jet engine, keeping the compressor and turbine sections, but replacing the combustion chambers with what is basically a heat exchanger, adding heat from the reaction process to the compressed air that flows through the engine. For size/available energy reasons the unit was designed to have two ‘jet engines’ with one reactor feeding them both.

While the X-6 is connected to this project, it never flew with any of these engines. The purpose of the X-6 was to examine the problems of handling a nuclear reactor in flight, looking at shielding for the crew, airframe problems, handling etc. To do this it was modified to carry a small nuclear reactor in the bomb bay which could be powered up, but did not deliver any power/energy to the aircraft itself.

I’ll have to second James D’s correction Papa Lima. A Lancaster whizzing by at 1000 feet with three props feathered only means that it is maintaining height at that moment. It could have started its run from 3000 feet diving to build up energy, and slowly losing speed during its level run. Knowing that this is possible, I cannot conclude that the Lanc is able to maintain level flight on one engine anymore, although the sight of one whizzing past does signify the possibility.

(here’s hoping I got my grammar right there :rolleyes: 😀 )

Sharkie: would love to see that photo!

Sad to see indeed.

How many times will this scene have taken place before on or around an airfield somewhere in England? Probably too many too count. Spare a thought for all those earlier days when B-17s were scraped off English soil, with crewmembers less fortunate than these.