IRIS Freeware

[zswobbie1]

Have a look here..

IRIS Simulations Classics – IRIS Simulations

All the FSX planes work in P3Dv4.5!!

[SgtT]

Thank you for sharing!

[Victory103]

Thanks for the head's up, wish the F-15E Mud Hen Driver was there.

[gray eagle]

The A-10 warthog seems to work ok in P3D V5.4

Wonder why the Marines didn't use it for their close air support missions?

[johndetrick]

The A-10 warthog seems to work ok in P3D V5.4

Wonder why the Marines didn't use it for their close air support missions?

Couldn't put it on a carrier.

[gray eagle]

Couldn't put it on a carrier.

They could of just added a tail hook but I learn from link below additional info on why USMC did not want it ( a pretty good read).

https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-the-...to-the-Marines

[delta_lima]

They could of just added a tail hook but I learn from link below additional info on why USMC did not want it ( a pretty good read).

https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-the-...to-the-Marines

A naval aircraft entails a whole lot more than the tail hook - including, but not limited to, launch points, wing folding mechanism, landing gear and other structures taking more than double the normal landing impact loads, higher levels of corrosion-proofing, and a whole suite of avionics for carrier operations. All of which (save the folding wings) McDonnell Douglas did when they adapted the BAe Hawk used by the RAF to produce the the T-45 for the US Navy's specifications. And that's "just" a trainer, not a front-line aircraft on months'-long open-ocean cruises. Probably why a whole more aircraft originally as CATOBAR aircraft got adapted by air forces than land-based aircraft that were navalized, at least post WWII.

In fact, I can think of very few; the F-17 (to F/A-18) which was clearly a success, and the SU-27 (to SU-33) which is very debatable as to its success operationally. The overwhelming majority of front-line carrier aircraft from the US, UK, and France were designed from the ground up from naval requirements.

[gray eagle]

A naval aircraft entails a whole lot more than the tail hook - including, but not limited to, launch points, wing folding mechanism, landing gear and other structures taking more than double the normal landing impact loads, higher levels of corrosion-proofing, and a whole suite of avionics for carrier operations. All of which (save the folding wings) McDonnell Douglas did when they adapted the BAe Hawk used by the RAF to produce the the T-45 for the US Navy's specifications. And that's "just" a trainer, not a front-line aircraft on months'-long open-ocean cruises. Probably why a whole more aircraft originally as CATOBAR aircraft got adapted by air forces than land-based aircraft that were navalized, at least post WWII.

In fact, I can think of very few; the F-17 (to F/A-18) which was clearly a success, and the SU-27 (to SU-33) which is very debatable as to its success operationally. The overwhelming majority of front-line carrier aircraft from the US, UK, and France were designed from the ground up from naval requirements.

I know you don't know me from Adam but I served in the US Navy for 24 years and was assigned to many aircraft squadrons during and after the Viet-Nam era. I am 2nd Gen Navy and my Dad was in Aviation
During WWII - Viet Nam. I earned the aviation warfare specialist pin which one has to be knowledgeable of all things aviation. I know about launch point, chord line, mean camber line, A negative dihedral angle (anhedral) mean camber line and other aviation related jargon;so I did not get off the turnip truck yesterday. I appreciate your "Lecture" on aviation related jargon but you are preaching to the choir my friend.

I made the comment to put a tail hook on the A-10 and was meant as hyperbolic; No need to bloviate. Okay?

[delta_lima]

I know you don't know me from Adam but I served in the US Navy for 24 years and was assigned to many aircraft squadrons during and after the Viet-Nam era. I am 2nd Gen Navy and my Dad was in Aviation
During WWII - Viet Nam. I earned the aviation warfare specialist pin which one has to be knowledgeable of all things aviation. I know about launch point, chord line, mean camber line, A negative dihedral angle (anhedral) mean camber line and other aviation related jargon;so I did not get off the turnip truck yesterday. I appreciate your "Lecture" on aviation related jargon but you are preaching to the choir my friend.

I made the comment to put a tail hook on the A-10 and was meant as hyperbolic; No need to bloviate. Okay?

Quoting you doesn’t equate to bloviating or preaching to you. The comments were for general perspective for those that might’ve not been familiar. But you already knew that, from my use of the smiley from the outset.

We’ve known each other here going back years and that both of us have backgrounds in both the military and aviation.

Relax.

[delta_lima]

What I was remiss in saying was a big thanks for the heads up on their release, will be fun to see which work in P3DV4.

[gray eagle]

Originally Posted by delta_lima View Post

Quoting you doesn’t equate to bloviating or preaching to you. The comments were for general perspective for those that might’ve not been familiar. But you already knew that, from my use of the smiley from the outset.

We’ve known each other here going back years and that both of us have backgrounds in both the military and aviation.

Relax.

I guess I read it wrong so sorry bout that - I will relax


It is hard to reply to a reply that is a reply So I just copy and paste to your last reply

[delta_lima]

All good, buddy.

[gray eagle]

I can tell on some zip names what aircraft they are but on the others I'm not sure what they are.

Some of them have F-14 or tomcat etc in the zip names and that pretty much tells me what they are but on the others, not so sure.

[zswobbie1]

I can tell on some zip names what aircraft they are but on the others I'm not sure what they are.

Some of them have F-14 or tomcat etc in the zip names and that pretty much tells me what they are but on the others, not so sure.

Try Google?

[delta_lima]

I believe the original poster said all the ones appended with “FSX” worked fine in P3DV4.

The F-14 was the one of highest interest to me since I had no way of scratching the A/B Tomcat itch once I transitioned to P3DV4 from FSX and thereby lost the Aerosoft Tomcat.

Am happy to report Iris’s freeware works perfectly, save for the launch bar not popping back up after riding the catapult. That means you have to raise it manually (shift+u) then cycle the gear. A bit of switch work to do quickly after launch before hitting 250kts but doable. Am surprised all the lighting and displays - which are custom coding - all seem to work well. Hani Michal repaints juice it up nicely to a level not far off the Cattaneo D Tomcat, itself an amazing freeware gem.

Since this latest release covers quite a few models, there should be something for nearly everyone’s interest.

Big thanks to Iris!!

[Victory103]

My Aerosoft Cat works in P3Dv4+. Good to see the old "classics/DSB" models as I flew them alot prior to other dev releases (F-14,A-7,S-3). I've got 2 payware Hawks for P3D, but wish the T2 model got some love.