Question regarding SAC metal landing gear

[Cees Broere]

Morning all,

The 1/32 Manchester is progressing very well now I have a set of 3D printed Vulture nacelles.

The model is getting very heavy and I think the HK Models landinggear parts are not strong

enough. I was thinking about using aftermarket ones and noticed SAC does a set. But what about strength?
 

Does anyone know?
TIA

Cees

[Lancman]

Hi Cees, I bought a set for the Trumpy Hurricane and found they are poorly made and soft white metal. 

So I wouldn't think they would hold your Manchester.

 

Graham

[thierry laurent]

1 hour ago, Cees Broere said:

Morning all,

The 1/32 Manchester is progressing very well now I have a set of 3D printed Vulture nacelles.

The model is getting very heavy and I think the HK Models landinggear parts are not strong

enough. I was thinking about using aftermarket ones and noticed SAC does a set. But what about strength?
 

Does anyone know?
TIA

Cees

Forget it! They are just useful for 1/72 kits, barely for 1/48 models and totally useless for large scale.

[LSP_Kevin]

Marry Snog Avoid. At all costs. You may as well replace the kit landing gear with spaghetti. Aerocraft does a proper brass set, but they're currently listed as out of stock:

 

https://aerocraftmodels.bigcartel.com/product/avro-lancaster-undercarriage-set-for-the-hong-kong-model-kits

 

Perhaps contact Ali and see what's up with that?

 

Kev

[Iain]

As others have said - personally, I'd avoid.

 

The ones I've had have has less strength than the plastic parts they are meant to replace.

 

Iain

[Rick Griewski]

Wow those Aerocraftmodels gear are very impressive.  Thanks for posting Kev. 

[Cees Broere]

Thanks for the advice chaps.

[cbk57]

i used a set on the Tamiya corsair and had to replace them because they were worse than the plastic parts.  Everyone complains about the larger scale sac part, it mystifies me that they don't fix this.  I certainly will not trust them until we see something definitive that they are changing their materials but they have sold the same useless produce for years.

[Sabrejet]

SAC parts are just copies of the kit parts and in my experience no stronger than the plastic parts. I'd save your money.

[AlanG]

Bought a set for for a 1/32 Revell Tornado. Absolute garbage. Ended up selling them again. Will never buy any again no matter what scale i need replacements for

[John1]

As others have said, these parts are nothing but copies of the kit bits using soft lead.   Complete garbage.   The funny thing is - if you go to another common modeling site, the site owner routinely publishes "reviews" about pretty much every SAC set that comes out, gushing about how they are such an improvement over the kit parts.   

 

Pathetic....

Edited November 20, 2022 by John1

[LSP_K2]

Our own LSP_Ray has reviewed several sets here, and his conclusions are always the same;... don't bother.

[MikeC]

I used a set on the Meng 1/32 Dr1 as one of the kit struts broke   and it delayed the model for a while.  They work, but are very bendy, and fitting the undercarriage was "interesting".  I used a set on the Revell Hunter, and they seem OK, albeit that they appeared to my eye to be identical to the kit parts, but they do seem to support the weight of that large model.

[Jack]

Cees, PM inbound

[LSP_Ray]

4 hours ago, LSP_K2 said:

Our own LSP_Ray has reviewed several sets here, and his conclusions are always the same;... don't bother.

Not quite true. They are typically, though not always, copies of the kit parts. If the aircraft has pretty spindly gear, the SAC gears will bend easily. If the gear is pretty beefy, the SAC gear is strong enough. Of course, if the gear is beefy, the plastic gear will be fine, too. The combination of no extra detail, sometimes rough casting, and difficult cleanup as well as using pretty soft metal makes them only useful if you break the originals. If they would use a better metal it wouldn't be so bad.