Focke Wulf Fw200-A Condor

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The type of manually controlled propeller that I was trying to install seems not to work in CFS1, i.e. selectable low and high pitch - it´s probably too old-fashioned to have been used in WW2, where propellers had already evolved to constant velocity ones.
The Manual type of propeller catered for in the sim seems to be of a different kind, more modern, where the return to low pitch is spring-loaded and/or counterweight controlled, and not forced, so that in certain flying conditions this will protect the engine from being damaged by over-revving. So it seems like the pilot can force the propeller to stay in high pitch, but only allow it to be in low pitch under certain conditions, for example for take-off.
I had prepared a longer post to comment on this, but it was too long and expressed in too complicated a way, so I deleted it.

Anyway, I´m very pleased with the Fw200 .air file. It works fine, and although I understand the Power Coefficient Table in general, it gave me headaches trying to modify, so I don´t think I´ll delve into it any further.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to observe your progress with it in the future after your work on the Ki-61 Prop is finished!

BTW, the >Ctrl<+F4 Key-combination won´t work on my computer, only F4 by itself - it drives all throttle-levers forwards all the way upto the maximum.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

These are NOT the 'Droids you are looking for.......

Hello Aleatorylamp,

This is getting quite interesting.
I saw a post about two hours ago that was much longer than this one and was about to respond to it when.....
....It disappeared.

Hmmmm. How Curious.


There are lots of things that don't really work properly in Combat Flight Simulator.
I am still wondering about Fuel Mixture and how it is handled.
I would not be surprised if there was yet another issue.

Regarding adventures in Propeller Tables, I believe I found yet another issue but am trying to figure out a way to work around it.
I also am having some trouble finding data for a future project. I want it not because I will be working on it soon but just so that I can plug it into some formulae and see how bad things get.

Just for amusement's sake, have you EVER seen a Propeller Pitch get higher than 50 Degrees?
I believe I have not even in a terminal velocity dive from the aircrafts' ceiling, so I am wondering if it makes sense to fix problems that I see in the 60 and 65 Degree graphs.
Also, if these Pitch Angles are not used, can I use them for my own purpose?

Regarding the FW 200, I believe a Two-Pitch Automatically Controlled Propeller will not be hard to do at some point.
I do have a lone Technician looking into the technology there.
Once he finds a solution there, perhaps it can be expanded to some extent.
First, he needs to put an old Lockheed Model 10 Electra back into flying condition because that is his test aeroplane.

My Technicians are a little strange and I believe I have noticed a pattern:
For basic numerical and pattern analysis or theory, I can task a single Technician to work alone while the rest are working on something else.
As soon as any real construction or research is required, they tend to need to work in groups and multitasking becomes serial rather than concurrent.

My kids have commented on the number of "Smarticle Particles" we each have.
Theirs, of course, have always been vastly superior to mine!

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I just realised that I had not really responded to the content of your new post.

The type of manually controlled propeller that I was trying to install seems not to work in CFS1, i.e. selectable low and high pitch - it´s probably too old-fashioned to have been used in WW2, where propellers had already evolved to constant velocity ones.

Early Spitfires had Two-Pitch Propellers and early versions of the Me 109E did not have a Constant-Speed Propeller either and these were all wartime versions. There are also photographs (of unknown date) showing Hurricanes with what appear to be Fixed Pitch Two-Blade Propellers. There were plenty of Fixed Pitch Propellers on aircraft throughout the war, especially on the smaller aeroplanes.

A couple months ago, when I was working on Gauges, I was wondering if I should try to build one of the German "Clock" Gauges that were used for Propeller control. The problem was mainly that although I had heard of the gauges, I never really understood how they behaved other than that 12 o'clock was maximum RPM.

Although I have FS98 installed on a couple machines and even have a few extra copies I could install on other machines, I have never spent much time flying with that simulator. For that simulator, there were a lot more "Golden Age" aeroplanes and planes of that era tended to have more of the adjustable pitch propellers (as on the Lockheed Electra I mentioned).

You have done quite a lot of development with FS98 and presumably have flown in it more often.
Do you happen to know how FS98 handled Propeller Pitch?
Also did Jets ever have "Reverse Thrust" in FS98?

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
No... These are not the droids we´re looking for... and I´m glad you feel it´s getting interesting.

I´m a bit under the weather due to some medication I´ve been taking the last few weeks, which is starting to disagree with me. At the beginning it only made me drowsy, but lately I´ve been so exhausted and with headaches that I´ll stop taking it for a time. Let´s see if my "Smarticle Particles" function with a little more precision!!

Anyway, I had re-written my last post after making it disappear because it was too long and not expressed very well, so I substituted it for a better-expressed one saying the same in fewer words.

The fuel tanks are another matter which I´ll have to think about because as far as I can see, the Condor had left and right main tanks and left and right auxiliary tanks, so none of the stock German fighter outfits (tank selectors and gauges) will be very useful. The only one which half-ways will be OK is the P51d or the Hurricane, as they at lease have left and right main tanks and one central one.

I am quite intrigued as to how you will approach the 2-position Hamilton Standard Type propeller when the time comes. I had even tried pushing the "X" coordinates of the graphs together to eliminate the gap between high and low, but I had the division at Pitch 25, so the propeller oscillated all the time between the two.

Talking about pushing the "X" coordinates graphs together in the alternative graph viewing mode offered by AAM: If your Ti-61 propeller doesn´t use the 55, 60 and 65 Pitch positions, limiting the use in the .air file to 50 just in case, you could change the "X" of the unused graphs and use them at 37.5, 42.5, and 47.5. pitch positions, to get more graphs in between.

Yes, you´re right, quite a few early WWII fighters and small courier planes had fixed propellers, and some also had manually controlled ones. Probably it was more the multi-engined planes that tended to go for the CV props quite soon for power-balance reasons, perhaps.

Interesting, the German clock-gauge for propellers - I´ve never seen one.

Re. FS98:
There is quite a good-working reverse pitch implemented for jets. You can even back up on the tarmac quite well, although if you overdo it, it ends in disaster. This option is great for turboprops, because you have to use a jet .air file for them, and bingo! You get reverse pitch. You can´t make a propeller though... FS98 propeller thrust and efficiency saw-tooth graphs are most probably something at best left alone!!

Unfortunately when I was building for FS98, I did very little .air file work, and I never used manual prop pitch adjustment. It was usually fixed propellers for the big biplanes of the Great War, and CV ones for a couple of more modern planes I built. I never went into the pitch parameters either, I´m afraid!

I have FS98 installed on this machine just for testing and/or comparison purposes - with no hardware accelleration because the too modern graphics can´t cope. It´s great though, how CFS1 still manages there!!

When I feel better I´ll try out the manual propeller option in FS98 and see if I can find out how that works.
The problem will be that the Beckwith Gauge Stack can´t be used as it makes FS98 crash. Investigations will be limited to observing how engine RPM gauge reacts to prop-pitch control lever on the Cessna 182, which has a manual propeller implemented.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I hope you are feeling better soon.
I had actually already been reading your original post. You seemed much more upset and I have to agree that for the most part, your comments were valid. We all interpret things differently and sometimes I do not read things the way you may have intended to write them.

Regarding Fuel Tanks:
You have pretty much the same situation that I do with my two Twin-Engine Projects.
My suggestion is to do nothing; The default fuel selection is quite adequate for any of these aeroplanes.
Both Aux tanks will be used first followed by both Main tanks.
In my case, especially with the Lightning, I need to rename the tanks so that the Aux == Main and Main == Reserve in order for the tanks to be expended in proper order. Other than that, there should be no issues even if one engine is cut because fuel is drawn equally from all tanks currently in use.
Any of the stock selectors would be a bad idea because you cannot specify that tanks on both sides be used equally to maintain balance.
I may eventually work on a few Fuel Selector Gauges, but I need to find out how to do things first because what I know now is not adequate.

Talking about pushing the "X" coordinates graphs together in the alternative graph viewing mode offered by AAM: If your Ti-61 propeller doesn´t use the 55, 60 and 65 Pitch positions, limiting the use in the .air file to 50 just in case, you could change the "X" of the unused graphs and use them at 37.5, 42.5, and 47.5. pitch positions, to get more graphs in between.

The 5 Degree gap between graphs is not the most serious problem. There are much bigger problems than that.
I need to test out a couple ideas before deciding on a direction.
From what I have been able to find thus far, the Hurricane Mk.I Propeller Tables are probably the only ones that are proper.
I should also look at the stock non-flyable (AI) flight models as well.
Solving the original problem of making the Ki 61 engine spin up faster looks to be quite simple but leaves too many other problems.

Regarding FS98 Reverse Thrust:
Does the same flight model work in CFS and retain the reverse thrust capability?
If it does, please let me know where I can find the download to do some experimenting.

Regarding Turboprops:
I have always wondered if it made sense to use a Jet flight model to simulate a Turboprop.
Consider that the majority of the propulsion is due to the Propeller until aircraft reaches a pretty high speed.
That is why it was my intention to model my version of the P-3 Orion with a Piston Engine flight model.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I wasn´t upset, but it sounded like I was a bit, so I erased the original post - apart from the fact that it was a bit confusing to understand what I was trying to say about the 2 types of manually adjusted types of propellers.

Actually there´s a third type, which includes three more positions - reverse pitch for tarmac manoeuvers, full 90 deg feathering, and zero pitch idle positions, also manually selectable - most probably also with some kind of protection so that these positions are not selected in flight.

Thanks about your coments on the fuel tanks. In that case I´ll and use FS98 Fuel tank gauges and fuel Record 302.

As regards the graphs, I suppose any unused pitch graphs can be re-cycled into other positions within the scope defined by the beta-max and beta-min parameters.

Then, Yes, indeed! Reverse Pitch is available for jets and turboprops in CFS1 - not only in FS98.
Here are two screenshots.
The first one is during the take-off run. Note the thrust levers in full throttle, and the forward accelleration and thrust readings on the Beckwith Gauge.
Halfway down the runway reverse thrust was forced in, the plane slowed down, stopped and started reversing, reaching a tremendous rate of knots (which are not shown on the panel). Also, apparently the aircraft doesn´t lose control if reversing too fast like in FS98. Note the thrust levers in reverse position, and the Beckwith Gauge showing negative accelleration and thrust, but zero speed, which isn´t true, of course.

I had tried out an equivalently powered piston engine combination for the P-3 Orion .air file, but even with the best supercharger combination I wasn´t able to have the power at altitude that was given by the jet .air file - but then, I didn´t use the Hurricane propeller, I must admit!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Reverse Thrust....

Hello Aleatorylamp,

So where can I find this aeroplane with the reverse thrust and how do I activate reverse thrust to test things out?

Regarding the Propeller Graphs, the biggest issue isn't the lack of Pitch Range which is pretty high.
The problem is lack of range for Advance Ratio.
I just did a few experiments and know what doesn't work, but have not yet found anything that will accomplish what I want for Advance Ratios. I DO have a bunch more spreadsheets though....

Regarding the P-3 Orion and Piston versus Jet AIR Files:
You need to look at the distribution of power for those engines.
At low speed, the thrust is coming mostly from those large fan blades.
At high speed, the efficiency of the propeller is quite a bit lower and I believe that at least half the thrust is coming from the Jet Exhaust.
In terms of reciprocating engines, the majority of the thrust is always coming from the propeller.
I believe this will not be hard to do, but will require some serious modifications to the propeller tables.

Exhaust thrust is also a significant factor even with regular propeller aeroplanes.
As an example, note that the Japanese A6M3 Model 32 Type 00 and A6M5 Model 52 were not that different except for a change in the wing tips and exhausts and even used the same engine yet the A6M5 was about 20 MPH faster.

By the way, the stock Hurricane's propeller is not magical. I don't even believe it is really that effective, but the numbers at least cover the range of possible performance of the aeroplane.
I should start a new thread for this propeller business. Ivan's Workshop is doing a fair amount of setup to be able to carve and machine custom propellers. There is currently no surplus capacity for contract work though, but if everything goes well, there will eventually be the capacity for contract work.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
The 3-P Orion that you helped me with in many aspects, and that I uploaded in the Warbirds Library, has such an .air file.
Also the Starfighter I uploaded - although I remember you had tried this one out, reporting some wierd flight behaviour which I haven´t fixed yet. I think it wouldn´t lose speed fast enough to be able to land conveniently, but it does have reverse thrust. (It flies better in FS98 though!).

You can activate reverse thrust by decreasing the throttle by pulling the levers back on the throttle quadrant beyond the null point, or by pressing F3. Cutting the throttle is no good because it leaves the levers at the zero point - you have to pull them back further, into reverse.

The sim will only let you do it with the wheels on the ground, so braking with the props while diving like the A400M Military Airbus does, is not on!

In the .air file, Record 313 Reverse Thrust has to be set with the - % Power you want. It is a negative value, and in general this is set to -25.

Update: Further Reverse Thrust Experiments.
Last year I experimented a bit with the AF99 Balsa Glider Tutorial, putting on wheels and a pair of 123 flb Microjets on its back. I used a jet .air file, and it worked very well, but it didn´t have reverse thrust, so I tried that out today with -25%.

At first it only acted as a brake, and couldn´t push the glider backwards. If I used -100%, it worked for a second, acted as a brake, and quickly stopped (apparently flaming out?).

Then I put it back to -25 and started increasing the flb power, coming across a threshhold for this Microjet Glider at 205 flb, below which there isn´t enough force to push it backwards. It wouldn´t work with a single 205 flb engine either. The weight of the glider is 995 lbs.

The next test I did was use the original twin Microjets with 123 flb, but halving the weight of the glider to 495 lbs, and this time reverse thrust worked! It started pushing the plane backwards. Testing for the moment when the plane rolled forward, it was also at 25%. So it obviously depends on the result of the sim´s power/ground friction calculation.

Anyway, I thought this was quite a useful experiment.

Let me know how it works for you!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Thanks for the information. I will try it out when I get the Propeller Workshop at least able to manufacture ONE propeller.
Regarding P-3 Orion, except for the startup, it sounds pretty much like a quiet piston engine aeroplane.
I have never actually seen one, but that is what is shown in the videos.

The numbers you are giving sound a bit like a monster sized Jet-ex model from back in the 1970's.
Does the friction change if you are on a paved runway or on water?

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Fun with Microjets!

Hello Ivan,
Microjets are incredible, aren´t they?
There´s a glider with a retractable one... a bit difficult to coordinate on a build with AF99 though!

I think Turboprop sounds are great. The P3-Orion I uploaded has ATR turboprop sounds. I like the mix between the blades´sounds and the quiet whistle of the jet turbine. Really cool are the Tu-95 Bear sounds too - the blades make a throb that can even be detected underwater by a submarine!

I have only tested the grass runway I installed in Berlin... I think friction is a bit greater than asphalt, or at least it should be, and I haven´t tried it on water, but I´ll try it, as I´ve got the little programme installed that allows you to land on water.

Incidentally, I put the head and texture of your pilot into the Microjet Glider, so it looks better now. Then I played with it a bit more. Reverse thrust of -35% and -45% also works without creating a flame-out, but is much too fast. More realistic is -25%. Then, I settled for a MTOW of just over 800 lb, to keep reverse thrust working with the original 2x123 flb power, and to avoid the excessively light feel it had with the lower weight I´d tested.

The best of luck to your workshop guys with the Ti-61 Propeller!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

These Jet-ex engines were not really all that micro. They were more the size of your average Rifle Grenade and shaped similarly.
I think these little jets were basically a miniature version of the German V-1 Buzz Bomb engine.
They ran off of plain gasoline instead of the typical Nitro-methane that the other control-line models used.
They were VERY loud, VERY fast and burned a lot of fuel, but who cared at the time? This was before the Oil Crisis back in the 1970s and I believe gasoline only cost about 30 cents per gallon. The engines tended to glow red hot after a run, so they were not painted.
The engine was typically pretty close to the size of the fuselage, so no retractable engine for these "aeroplanes".
I actually did have a control-line model that I received as a present. It was a P-51D Miss America with a Cox .049 cubic inch glow plug engine. There was no question which direction to fly it because the rudder was permanently offset to the right side
We flew it a few times in the back yard but it didn't always start (probably because we had no idea what we were doing) and was quite loud but nothing compared to a Jet-ex.

With all this discussion about jets, I should build one, but first I need to finish SOMETHING!

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Wow! I´d never seen those big ones in action - I never knew they existed in that size.

The Jet-ex I thought you were referring to, was a thumb-sized tiny model-airplane jet engine, where you had to insert a cartridge and light it, and it would work like a solid fuel rocket for long enough to get a free-flight glider spiralling upwards to gain height and glide down again, or to get a single-channel R/C glider up and get 5 minutes gliding time.

What you are describing is more serious business, and with the noise, could well have been pulse-jets, as you say.

I also built control-line models - wow! - with the Cox Baby Bee .049 engine (wonderfully simple technology), and cut my fingers on the prop a few times. One was a Bristol Boxkite Farman type biplane - no acrobatics - very slow, and the other one was like a Spitfire. Strange how I didn´t get dizzy flying it - probably because of looking at the plane all the time.

The real Microjets or Micro Turbojets I mean are in production nowadays by not many manufacturers: Axial-flow, multi-stage, with compressor and impeller turbines - single spool. To make adults fly! A good one is the PBS TJ-100 Turbojet, 247 lbs. Takeoff Thrust. Engine Weight: 44 lbs. including operating fluids. Engine Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: 5.61:1.

The jet .air file does have its attractiveness, as you can act on a few factors that are interesting.
It´s not as creative as the CFS1 piston engine, but nowhere as simple as the CFS1 Rocket engine - although they are very curious too! I suppose anthing that moves is curious... I never knew that the Rocket Engine didn´t work in FS98. Now I know why all those have jet engine .air files, even the Opel-Sander Rocket Plane by Fritz von Opel with Sander´s solid fuel rockets!

Well, your Ti-61 prop is almost finished, so you´re almost there! Then comes the decision what to do after that...

I have to finish the Virtual Cockpit on the Condor and that will be ready for upload soon. Then I´ll go back to the Dornier Schnellbomber and prepare that for upload.

Hello Smilo!
I hope you are well!
How are you getting on with the Dornier panel? Just a question, don´t worry.
Anyway, let´s all have a good long weekend.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

My Son and I spent most of the day at the IPMS Model Classic event today.
As usual, I spent way more on admission and food than on actual models, but it goes to an organization I would like to support.
My Daughter joined me there in the mid afternoon.
Both kids built a model at the "Make & Take" event.

I actually am not very close to finishing the Ki 61 Propeller but am still at the point where I am trying to figure out a series of formulas to generate the graphs to use.
Experiments with laying out the graphs are going well, but nothing even close to being tested yet.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

The jet .air file does have its attractiveness, as you can act on a few factors that are interesting.
It´s not as creative as the CFS1 piston engine, but nowhere as simple as the CFS1 Rocket engine - although they are very curious too! I suppose anthing that moves is curious... I never knew that the Rocket Engine didn´t work in FS98. Now I know why all those have jet engine .air files, even the Opel-Sander Rocket Plane by Fritz von Opel with Sander´s solid fuel rockets!

Well, your Ki-61 prop is almost finished, so you´re almost there! Then comes the decision what to do after that...

The problem with the Jet AIR File is that I am not really sure how to do things yet.
With the "More Complicated" Propeller AIR Files, I have a pretty good idea how to do a few things.
After all,
"Why make it simple if you can also make it complicated?"

The first two tests of the Ki 61-I Propeller last night actually went pretty well.
I generated my own versions of Table 512 - Propeller Power Coefficient which turned out to be pretty controllable for what I am trying to do. I miscalculated the Power Coefficient to adjust for which is why it took me a second try to get things where I wanted.
As for Table 511 - Propeller Efficiency, I just used a heavily modified version of the stock P51D Record.
I can generate them, but do not want to have to adjust everything else that it would take to match the original performance numbers.
Even with the modified P51D version I still will need to adjust things but I am hoping it will not need many changes.

The next step has already been decided for me:
In order to finish up the Ki 61, it needs to have a few adjustments made to its AIR file.
I have a lot more information than I did a few years ago and there are things this AIR file needs that I did not know how to do back then.
The engine parameters were based on those of the Me 109E but now I have the actual information for the Ha-40 engine.

I also noticed one very odd thing on this forum:
I can QUOTE my own posts but cannot QUOTE anyone else's.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

I also noticed one very odd thing on this forum:
I can QUOTE my own posts but cannot QUOTE anyone else's.

- Ivan.

am i missing something here?
i'm seeing that you quoted Aleatorylamp
at the top of post #114

 

[smilo]

interesting...now, the quote feature doesn't work.
i wonder if it is time sensitive?
....no matter, we have ways of dealing with such things.

quote;
Hello Smilo!
I hope you are well!
How are you getting on with the Dornier panel?

hello Stephan,
other than a lack of motivation,
things are well, thanks for asking.
unfortunately, the lack of motivation
has affected my work on the do17 panel.
i hate to admit, i haven't looked at it
for a few weeks, now.
my apologies for letting you down.

 

[Ivan]

am i missing something here?
i'm seeing that you quoted Aleatorylamp
at the top of post #114

Hello Smilo,

The quote feature actually worked for this message.
If it does not, you can still get the same effect by typing in the formatting around the text you wish to quote.
In other words, type in the <SquareBracket>QUOTE=Smilo<EndSquareBracket> to begin and
<SquareBracket>/QUOTE<EndSquareBracket> to end the quote.

The Text below is what the editor pre-populates when you select the quote feature.
I generally don't bother putting in the message number because it is a pain to find.

{ QUOTE=smilo;1080629]am i missing something here?
i'm seeing that you quoted Aleatorylamp
at the top of post #114 { /QUOTE]

You might have noticed that sometimes I have two lines following the quoted message if there is more than one quote in the post.
I did NOT make a mistake. The editor seems to do that to the message if there is more than one quote block.
Another bit of strangeness is that these quoted messages show up as blank if you try to edit them.

Hope the description makes sense because the functioning certainly does not.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

whatever works.
i'll use it if i can remember the formatting
down the road if and when i need it.
if i can't, i'll just copy/paste the quote
and change the color.
convoluted? maybe, but, it works for me.

sure, i could go grouse to the senior admins,
but, remember, the cfs1 forum
is in the sub basement of this site.
in the big picture, we are just a few of the many.
our issues are minuscule
compared to the rest of the forums.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo,

My impression was that every forum here had value.
Some have a greater audience, some have a smaller audience.
Some have more activity, some have less.
We are not the least active forum around, and this was the simulator that started them all.
(I suppose Flight Simulator 98 is the real ancestor of them all, but there isn't a FS98 forum here.)

There are forums here that haven't had any activity in almost two years.
There are forums that only get a post every month or two.
I figure we have about a half dozen people who post regularly and another couple dozen lurkers who drop in pretty regularly.
How else would we be getting so many views on these threads?
....So why is it that you believe we are the least important?

So why is it that whenever there is a catastrophe of some kind, WE are the ones that lose all the images ever posted?
This kind of an unstable environment is the main reason why I do not bother trying to create threads that might be useful references in the future: The chances are pretty good that some event will cause a loss of images and references that will make them worthless pretty quickly before any future need.

Pardon the Rant.

- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan, Hello Smilo,

As regards quotes, I tend to keep it simple and just copy bits from other posts and put them between inverted commas - Smilo´s idea of changing the colour is better though!

Very interesting progress on the Ki-61 propellers!

No hurry for the Dornier upload because panel-related issues are not that easy anyway - It´s going a bit slow with the Condor as well! I´ve been trying to decide what instruments to put into the Panel, and with the available material the obvious choice is to go for a mixture between custom and stock gauges.

Unless someone recommends doing it in a different way, which I will gladly do in that case, I don´t want to use anything from the FS98 FW200 Panel because it´s from the Ju52, so I prefer stock stuff or adapted stock stuff. Then, the radio and nav stuff like VOR1, COM1, ADF and DME, will most probably be Stock FS98. (There seems not to have been a Com2 or VOR2 on the real plane).

My latest efforts in German adaptations of FSFSConv gauges are just about as realistic/unrealistic as the dual German EGT/CHT and OIL temp/press gauges - namely a German VAC/AMP gauge and a German L/R Fuel Quantity Gauge. I´m not sure if I´ll use them yet - but at least they look better than the unmodified stock ones.

I may even put a vintage frame around the Cessna 182 Directional Gyro as well. The fuel gauge needle only starts going down when fuel is under 18% in the Codor, because of the incresed quantity of Litres compared to what´s in the Cessna 182 tanks.
Anyway, here are some screenshots of the new adapted gauges.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp