Good realistic variants of these impressive Russian fighters are sadly missing from the world of Microsoft Flight Simulator.There are a couple of freeware Mig-29 models out there. The best one currently is probably the ex-payware model from IRIS, available from here:http://www.irissimulations.com/the-hangar.phpalong with a wide selection of other freeware fighters. The IRIS Mig-29 has a very good 3D model and flight dynamics, but is sadly laking in any systems modeling and the panel and VC are just about decent.As for the Sukhoi Su-27 - I haven't seen any noteworthy freeware offerings.Not any really good payware available for both of these either. A big gap here, that's open for exploitation by any capable developers.A dedicated and realistic combat sim featuring these fighters would also be very welcome. The 'Lock-On' series is good, but it is missing certain elements and is not as realistic as I would like it to be.What I would like to see is a very detailed and realistic simulation of these types. Up to the standards of the payware VRS F/A-18 Hornet for example - http://www.vrsimulations.comTeam FS KBT might be able to do a good freeware job if they decided to try their hand at one or both of these fighters. I was very impressed with their beta release Mitsubishi F-2 fighter (Japanese version of the F-16). Graphically it is startling what they have achieved, their model still needs some work on its Flight Dynamics and Systems modeling to make it an all time classic - but it is very impressive non-the-less. Anybody can check for themselves, the FS KBT F-2 is available from the AVSIM Library (filename: f-2a_dko.zip) I am surprised we haven't seen more realistic freeware attempts of MiG-29s and Su-27s from Russia. The freeware stuff that has come out of there over the years has been unbelievably impressive. Hopefully someone would be willing to pick up the challenge.

Yup, that's something I'd like to see too. The MiG-29 is a very graceful design in my opinion. It is slightly let down by its smoky engines, which make it easy to pick up visually in a turning fight (something which hindered the F-4 Phantom too), but I know it does well in a turning fight, since it apparently beat a bunch of Dutch F-16s when the re-unified German Air Force inherited some from the East German air Force and indulged in a bit of dissimilar combat training against the Dutch, and that was a two-seater MiG variant as well, so god alone knows what the single seat would have managed, as it would undoubtedly be more nippy.For a brief time, the RAF were actually considering having a re-engined versions of the MiG-29 with Western avionics when the Eurofighter Typhoon project was going through its many hissy fits. That would have probably been a real top notch multirole aircraft if they'd have gone for it, but alas they did not.What was an interesting thing to see was how the Su-27 shaped up against the very much smaller F-16, and I got a chance to see that at RAF Fairford a few years ago, when an F-16 and an Su-27 indulged in a bit of an impromptu turning fight at the USAF's 50th anniversary show. They were able to turn at approximately the same rate, but the F-16 had to use afterburners to do it, and the Su-27 was on purely dry power, so if it would have been a real fight, the F-16 would have lost, since all the Su-27 driver would have to do is wait for the Falcon to run out of gas!On another interesting personal note, I actually have the remains of the ejector seat from one of these two MiG-29s that collided. The bits stayed at Fairford for the accident investigation, and I got them after the investigation was completed, probably shouldn't actually have them, but I have, so there! A fairly rare thing to have I should think LOL The seat took a real battering when it hit the deck, but it did its job:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2WE63P7Q3Q...feature=relatedAl

............For a brief time, the RAF were actually considering having a re-engined versions of the MiG-29 with Western avionics when the Eurofighter Typhoon project was going through its many hissy fits. That would have probably been a real top notch multirole aircraft if they'd have gone for it, but alas they did not.

That would have been a magnificent aircraft! Cost effective and durable too. Pity they didn't try it........

............. The MiG-29 is a very graceful design in my opinion. It is slightly let down by its smoky engines, which make it easy to pick up visually in a turning fight (something which hindered the F-4 Phantom too), but I know it does well in a turning fight, since it apparently beat a bunch of Dutch F-16s when the re-unified German Air Force inherited some from the East German air Force and indulged in a bit of dissimilar combat training against the Dutch, and that was a two-seater MiG variant as well, so god alone knows what the single seat would have managed, as it would undoubtedly be more nippy.

Yes, the MiG-29 is a great design and coupled with its mighty Klimov turbofan engines has a hell of a performance and maneuverability capabilities. The engines are huge for an aircraft of its size. They are smoky, but the power they provide is more than impressive. Bulgarian MiG-29 pilots can do an Immelman manoeuvre directly from take off! and in the two seater version (MiG-29UB) too! Its capabilities are superb.The one disadvantage is that those engines are thirsty. If an F-16 can negate an initial attack from a MiG-29 (not an easy thing to do) and stay neutral for a time (also difficult) the Mig will start to run out of fuel quicker giving the advantage to the F-16. But this has been addressed in the newer Mig-29 versions - the MiG-29K and Ms, which can carry more fuel and have upgraded engines - giving them more range and flight time; also incorporating numerous other enhancements and improvements. The newest MiG-29 version is the MiG-35, which is still in development - I'd love to see what it can do.

On another interesting personal note, I actually have the remains of the ejector seat from one of these two MiG-29s that collided. The bits stayed at Fairford for the accident investigation, and I got them after the investigation was completed, probably shouldn't actually have them, but I have, so there! A fairly rare thing to have I should think LOL The seat took a real battering when it hit the deck, but it did its job:

Heh.....wow - Is it the whole seat and how did you get it? I imagine something like that would have been classified material. I remember the Fairford collision. Its a good thing that nobody was hurt.

What was an interesting thing to see was how the Su-27 shaped up against the very much smaller F-16, and I got a chance to see that at RAF Fairford a few years ago, when an F-16 and an Su-27 indulged in a bit of an impromptu turning fight at the USAF's 50th anniversary show. They were able to turn at approximately the same rate, but the F-16 had to use afterburners to do it, and the Su-27 was on purely dry power, so if it would have been a real fight, the F-16 would have lost, since all the Su-27 driver would have to do is wait for the Falcon to run out of gas!

The Su-27 and its derivatives have a performance and maneuverability on a completely different level. Its a big fighter craft - about 50% bigger than a MiG-29 but with graceful looks (she's a beauty) and very deadly. It'd be great if the Bulgarian Airforce decides to get some of these - I'd be happy.Its widely known that both the MiG-29 and Su-27 can do the Cobra manoeuvre - it makes them pretty special.At any rate it would be brilliant to see these two aircraft realistically represented in FS. They are well known, so I would imagine they'd be commercially viable and successful add-ons (if done properly).

It's not the whole seat, just a large collection of bits, including the seat pan, and they are very dented for the most part. The bits were transferred to RAF Brize Norton for study by the ejector seat guys there after the crash.Theoretically, the investigation would probably come under military jurisdiction, and I don't know if that differs from Annex 13, which is the UN air accident mandate on how investigations are to be conducted. Part of Annex 13 states that the bits recovered from a crash are to be made available to the owners of the aircraft as soon as is practicable following the investigation into the accident. I got those bits many years after the crash, so they were presumably never asked for by the Russians, they were just lying around at Brize for years, and eventually, someone who worked in the place where they were got them and gave them to me.Here's a pic of one of the bits (sorry for the poor quality, I just grabbed it and held it near an angle poise lamp on my piano so I could snap it with my camera phone LOL):Al

Thanks for the picture.I imagine the RAF took everything apart to see exactly how it works.Little surprised the Russians didn't demand for all material to be returned to them. I guess as it was just after the Cold War ended, things were generally in a mess and they never did ask intently for the pieces back and probably weren't bothered by it latter.I always thought they participated in the investigation somehow and collected everything with a microscope after that. Maybe they weren't too worried as the MiGs were aerobatic and didn't have any radar or weapon systems installed and also were thoroughly destroyed after the crash.It is a rare thing to have - but its too bad its not the whole seat. If I had a whole jet fighter seat (provided its not too badly damaged) I could put it in the living room and use it as a normal chair (much to everyone's dismay) - could have a cup of tea or watch the World Cup from it..... :(. Although putting it in the living room would probably result in the women of the house throwing myself and the seat out, in a violent manner........

I suspect the seat is probably not that secret a thing; it's likely to be found in export MiGs, since it is clearly one of the best ejector seats around, as evidenced by the number of times it has rather embarrassingly had to be used at air shows LOL There was not much to investigate in that accident either, since it was clearly a collision which caused it.Like most nations that make combat vehicles for export, the Russians also tend to 'dumb down' the offensive capabilities of export variants, but a decent ejector seat is an entirely good selling point for a fighter, since it costs quite a lot to train up a fighter pilot. Most nations know that they are probably going to lose a few fighter planes to mishaps, so knowing that they won't lose a pilot as well is quite reassuring from an economic standpoint. A good example of that policy with regard to the combat capabilities of things, is Russian tanks, which tend to be viewed as rather poor based on how the Iraqis and Syrians have faired in them against western types, but those export versions were usually nowhere near as capable as the ones the Russians keep for themselves, and certainly not available in the kinds of number the Russians had stockpiled when the Cold War threatened to get hot!As you can see from that part, it is rather utilitarian in appearance, and when you compare that to stuff from Western aircraft, it does tend to make people disdain Russian stuff, but rough or not, there's no denying the fact that it works. Compare these two bits I have; one is from Martin Baker ejection seat that came out of a SEPECAT Jaguar, the other is from that MiG-29...MiG-29's eject firing handle and shroud:Firing handle from SEPECAT Jaguar:Even on these crappy pics I took with my phone, it is evident that the Martin Baker handle from the Jaguar is beautifully machined; it looks like something from a spaceship, with its red anodised aluminium parts that fit like a glove, whereas the bit from the MiG's firing handle is decidedly more 'army' in its appearance, with very rough cast parts and its big press-studs on leather.Nevertheless, when you can knock out equipment at a lower price, because everything is more simply produced, it does mean you can afford to produce more of it. A tactic which certainly worked for the Russians in WW2, where the very rough T-34 tank was able to outnumber and outfight the vastly more sophisticated Panther and Tiger tanks which the ##### had. Something which the far less capable, but more numerous US Sherman tank was also able to do against the Tiger. It's also a tactic the Americans found to their dismay worked with the MiG-21 versus the F-14 - when they tested the F-14's offensive capabilities by firing four AIM-54 Phoenix missiles at four QF-102 drones configured to show up on radar like a MiG-21, the missiles destroyed two, damaged a third, but completely missed the fourth, creating a situation with the F-14 out of missiles and with possibly two 'MiGs' still able to come after it. Bad news if you are in one of those two MiGs that gets shot down, but in a war of numerical attrition, as in WW2, its a game that would favour the comparatively cheap and plentiful MiGs eventually.Thankfully, we are unlikely to see a major conflict between Western and Eastern jets these days, which was certainly not the case when I was a kid and the Cold War was at its height. It's great to now live in a world where the internet can show us that people in other countries are not the enemies politicians would sometimes have us believe, and I'm glad that such wars are likely to be the thing of computer games more than will be of real life, but it is still interesting to speculate about how stuff like that would have panned out, now that the 'pure fighter' jet born of the Cold War is something that is disappearing in favour of more economical multi-role types.Al

You've got a collection........... I'm starting to think you may have a few Spitfires in the back yard......... and maybe even a couple of English Electric/BAC Lightnings......Thanks for the images - they demonstrates an interesting contrast, one I'm familiar with well.Unlike the MiG eject firing handle I don't think the Jaguar one has come from a crash - it looks in good condition, a surplus part perhaps.I like the Jaguar. It has a little bit of a similarity with the F-4 Phantom in its design at the back. Its the only plane I have seen that can carry a missile on top of each wing! Yup - overwing pylons, I think these could only carry short-range air-to-air missiles (most likely Sidewinders) - None of the bigger beyond-visual-range stuff. Not all Jaguars have that modification though.It was a long while ago but I remember some UK Jaguars did come to visit in Bulgaria at Sofia Vrazhdebna. I've dug up some photos - you can see them along with parts of BuAF Mig-21s:Its too bad there were no MiG-23/27s stationed or stored there at the time. These are somewhat comparable to the Jaguar, even though they incorporate a swing-wing. No Mig-29s present either - tucked away at other airbases.

Thankfully, we are unlikely to see a major conflict between Western and Eastern jets these days, which was certainly not the case when I was a kid and the Cold War was at its height. It's great to now live in a world where the internet can show us that people in other countries are not the enemies politicians would sometimes have us believe...............

Well said.

I'm starting to think you may have a few Spitfires in the back yard...

Well, funnily enough, I do have some parts of Spitfires, including some bits from a very famous Spitfire which was shot down during the Battle of Britain, that being Spitfire Mark 1 R6753, which was flown by Colin Pinckney. The reason it is famous, is that Pinckney was author Richard Hillary's friend when they were both in the same Squadron, and they were in the same dogfight. It is documented in Hillary's famous biography, The Last Enemy, which he wrote whilst recovering from burns he received when his own Spitfire was shot down. Pinckney was one of only a few WW2 fighter pilots to have downed enemy aircraft from all three Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan.Here's some parts that Spitfire...You are right by the way, the Jaguar seat firing handle was retrieved by a friend of mine who was working on the decommissioning of Jaguars, he being an armourer who would, amongst other things, service the ejector seats. So it was actually in service on an aircraft, just never fired.Al

Well, funnily enough, I do have some parts of Spitfires........................Al

I knew it....That's an interesting story behind those pieces.It was a completely different type of flying in WW2. I wonder what the pilots from that time generally think of today's aviation. I imagine they see it as faster, safer and more efficient but somehow a lot more restrictive as well.