1/32 Retractable Landing Gear and other "Working" parts on aircraft

[JSConnolly]

I've read alot about and been in discussions with fellow modelers about the "To have Retractable or NOT to have Retractable Landing Gear?" and here is MY take on it!
{This also goes with other "WORKING" parts on 1/32 scale or ANY scale Model Aircraft!}

As I don't JUST model Aircraft of different scales and eras... I ALSO Model, Cars, Tanks, Ships/Subs, and Sci-Fi Vehicles.  And whenever I see someone do 'WORKING PARTS" it makes ME go, "WOW! Please tell me how you DID THAT?!"

Some people think that "Working Landing Gear/Parts" on model aircraft turns them into "Toys"! But I TOTALLY Disagree! 
I've seen some AMAZING things done to model cars with working doors, hoods, trunks LIGHTS AND Directionals!  Even automatic Extending Radio Antenna! 
Just some truly astounding details!  I have a friend that did a 1/24th scale "James Bond Aston Martin DB-5" that had retractable machine guns, tire slashers, Working head and taillights
AND Dropping taillights for the oil and other "Defense" items! Even the "Ejector Seat" was Spring Loaded and REALLY Launched! He won MANY awards with it!

I say all of this because I've recently gotten into collecting 1/32 scale 21st. Century Toys WWII Aircraft AND some of the "Model Kits" they offered and I have to say,
that despite them being considered "Toys"... they DO offer ALOT in way of adding detailing and upgrades! 

If a person is a skilled modeler {as at age 57 and having been a modeler for over fifty years I would LIKE to think I am?!} with all of the great "After Market" parts available AND some 
"Old School" work... You CAN turn these "TOYS" Into some pretty impressive looking models WITH "Working Parts"?!
And as of now I am currently working on a pair of 1/32 Focke Wulf FW190D's that I'm having alot of fun with "Sprucing Up"! LOL

I would love to hear others thoughts and comments on this?  

Be Safe and Well everyone.

Peace.

Joe Connolly
Jefferson, Wisconsin USA

[chrish]

I think, I too would be impressed by someone adding functioning “moving/working” parts to a build, it may be done if they have a working knowledge and high degree of passion for the object being built.

for my part I’m quite happy if I get all the parts in the box glued to the subject and painted….looking decent and fewer finger prints on it than my previous builds. But that’s just me…

 

[themongoose]

I agreed, working landing gear and other features always make me go WOW! There’s 1 guy on here for sure that does workable gear. I believe he was doing an F-117  last. Can’t remember if it’s F’s are my Fav or someone else. Now I’m going to have to go look lol

[Rick Griewski]

Not big on the feature myself.  The closest thing I would be to portray a plane in takeoff with the landing gear coming up. 

[JeepsGunsTanks]

Maybe the disdain comes from the early kits that had working parts, they were basically toys. When I was kid, in the 80s, my grandma would take me to a five and dime in Hayward, and they had all those Revell 1/48 scale WWII Warbirds. Many of them had working gear, sliding canopies, even some folding wings. I think the kits were like 6 or 7 bucks in the early to mid 80s. I know I built them as toys. They were not the most accurate, if I recall right. 

 

I was super impressed with the Tamiya 1/32 Zero I have, it has working landing gear. I think that's cool as hell. I loved their kits that had a little electric motor inside the engine, and it was wired through a stand, with a little button to get the prop spinning. That's damn cool if you ask me! 

Edited June 11, 2022 by JeepsGunsTanks

[chrish]

41 minutes ago, JeepsGunsTanks said:

Maybe the disdain comes from the early kits that had working parts, they were basically toys. When I was kid, in the 80s, my grandma would take me to a five and dime in Hayward, and they had all those Revell 1/48 scale WWII Warbirds. Many of them had working gear, sliding canopies, even some folding wings. I think the kits were like 6 or 7 bucks in the early to mid 80s. I know I built them as toys. They were not the most accurate, if I recall right. 

 

I was super impressed with the Tamiya 1/32 Zero I have, it has working landing gear. I think that's cool as hell. I loved their kits that had a little electric motor inside the engine, and it was wired through a stand, with a little button to get the prop spinning. That's damn cool if you ask me! 

That reminds me, I built a P-51 with working landing gear….probably from the 80’s maybe a Monogram kit? (built in the 80’s) it had a knurled button dead centre of the wings, rotate the button and the gear would cycle and I can’t remember right now but there was a spring loaded slider that would disengage the bombs and drop them….not sure if the canopy opened or the scale of the model now but I still remember that rotating button to cycle the gear 

[MikeC]

7 minutes ago, chrish said:

That reminds me, I built a P-51 with working landing gear….probably from the 80’s maybe a Monogram kit? (built in the 80’s) it had a knurled button dead centre of the wings, rotate the button and the gear would cycle and I can’t remember right now but there was a spring loaded slider that would disengage the bombs and drop them….not sure if the canopy opened or the scale of the model now but I still remember that rotating button to cycle the gear 

Was that the 1/32 scale Phantom Mustang with the clear fuselage? Always wanted one , never found one at a price I'm prepared to pay yet.

[JeepsGunsTanks]

Now that you mention it, they were probably Monogram kits. This getting old crap sucks! 

[JSConnolly]

As the Great "Indiana Jones" once said... "It isn't the years... it's the MILEAGE!" LOL

[Out2gtcha]

I remember with vivid fondness the large scale  MPC kits at our LHS, they always had working  landing gear, flaps and flying surfaces.

Loved them all.

 

[D Bellis]

4 hours ago, MikeC said:

Was that the 1/32 scale Phantom Mustang with the clear fuselage? 

Not likely. Monogram released an "F-51D" kit with the Phantom Mustang airplane parts in mostly silver plastic without the motors or stand. It had a small knob in the lower wing for manually retracting the landing gear (as chrish mentioned). 

 

Both kits were rereleased many times over the years. The Phantom Mustang kit was released fairly recently (5 years ago?) with a very reasonable $39.95 price tag. 

 

HTH

D

[MikeC]

5 hours ago, D Bellis said:

The Phantom Mustang kit was released fairly recently (5 years ago?) with a very reasonable $39.95 price tag.

I don't recall seeing it this side of the Pond, but in any case, I don't doubt it would have a heftier price tag.

 

Anyway, I rather think I may be starting a bit of o/t drift here, so I'll try and answer the original question, starting with this thought:

 

11 hours ago, JeepsGunsTanks said:

Maybe the disdain comes from the early kits that had working parts, they were basically toys.

 

I think that's a lot of it.  Early kits often had compromises designed in to enable "working" parts to actually work.

 

I started plastic-bashing in the 60s, and building models from plastic kits was still struggling to gain acceptance as "proper" modelling.  Those who had grown up carving models out of solid wood regarded plastic kits as toys, especially with "working" parts.  Often the working parts had to be sacrificed to produce a better representation of the real thing.  For example, adding undercarriage struts that weren't in the kit meant that the "retractable undercarriage" had to be abandoned, and this hypothetical example may also have had oversized or even fictional hinges on the undercarriage doors to allow them to open and close.  Or props - I generally add mine, even now, as one of the last items on a model: fitting things like revolving props meant that the prop had to be added when joining fuselage or engine halves, so could not be painted separately, and was at risk of breakage.  Then there was the fact that a lot of work was often needed to actually allow the parts to work, and even then a stray bit of tube cement meant that they ended up not working anyway.

 

So I'm afraid by the age of 11 or so, when I bought my first Airfix Magazine (thus becoming a "serious modeller") I ignored working parts, and generally still do (although poly-capped props are fine).

[JSConnolly]

9 hours ago, Out2gtcha said:

I remember with vivid fondness the large scale  MPC kits at our LHS, they always had working  landing gear, flaps and flying surfaces.

Loved them all.

 

YES! Well said! I remember those too!  Again I think it can be done VERY WELL if one does their research and is a skilled modeler!

[geedubelyer]

Interesting topic. 

Whilst I lean towards a static only model I admire the skills and tenacity required to make working parts on scale plastic models. 

One question nags my tiny brain though.......after the first time it's operated, when is it ever used again? 

There are so many little bits sticking out of or dangling off my models I can no longer remember where or how to hold them to pick them up safely let alone operate fragile undercarriage or control surfaces etc. 

 

 

[JSConnolly]

13 hours ago, geedubelyer said:

Interesting topic. 

Whilst I lean towards a static only model I admire the skills and tenacity required to make working parts on scale plastic models. 

One question nags my tiny brain though.......after the first time it's operated, when is it ever used again? 

There are so many little bits sticking out of or dangling off my models I can no longer remember where or how to hold them to pick them up safely let alone operate fragile undercarriage or control surfaces etc. 

 

 

Well... If you are displaying it at a model club meeting or model show, then you can/would set it up as you wish?

I've attended model car shows that have an "Operational/Functions" table and corresponding category for models with those "Extra" touches so to speak?!