• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

IRIS Freeware

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

Wonder why the Marines didn't use it for their close air support missions?
 
gray eagle said:
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...-for-ground-support-instead-of-to-the-Marines
Click to expand...

:wavey:

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.
 
delta_lima said:
:wavey:

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.
Click to expand...


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? :engel016:
 
Last edited:
gray eagle said:
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? :engel016:
Click to expand...

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. :wavey:
 
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.
 
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. :wavey:

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

It is hard to reply to a reply that is a reply So I just copy and paste to your last reply :untroubled:
 
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.
 
gray eagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Try Google?
 
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!!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top