Question regarding SAC metal landing gear

[Jack]

but in all , SAC sucks for 32 nd scale and higher, i really don't understand how this company had the purpose of creating gear replacements for this kind of kits, it'll be a marginal copy of the kit's design and then some...........it's a scam............

[BiggTim]

Too bad Damian (SOW) doesn't make a set for it - those would certainly do the job! I would also throw my vote against the SAC gear for big planes. I have a couple sets for the Trumpy P-38, and they would bend if I breathed on them too much.

[BloorwestSiR]

22 hours ago, LSP_Ray said:

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. 

 

I think that sums it up best. I only used them on a couple  Tamiya Spitfires and they're still standing. 

 

Carl

[mattcour]

Bought a few. Not happy. They neither give more details over the kit's ones nor provide considerable extra strength. I could live without extra details if they were cast with a harder metal, which I believe the manufacturer seriously should consider.

[Gary Needham]

SAC=Utter garbage.

 

How they are still going after so long defies logic and interestingly enough, you never see anyone connected to them try and defend their product on any of the numerous threads where the massively overall consensus and opinion amongst modellers who have used them, is that they are a waste of money. You can see them bending even as you clean them up as the metal is so soft and malleable.

 

Perhaps their sales model is based upon ongoing sales to those with no actual experience of them but who simply buy then store them in the stash with their kits?

 

Use the brass ones produced by Ali at 'Aerocraft' as they are little jewels in their own right and above all, they actually do the job they are supposed to. 

 

Gary

[Tony C]

I’ll add to those that say that SAC are not suitable!

 

There was a time that I bought their sets without thought, until I used them in a build! The material is far too soft, is a straight copy of the original kit parts, which one would assume, will include any errors made by the kit manufacturer and as already mentioned, buckles under weight!

 

On top of that, many of the sets that I originally bought, contained parts of the legs already bent, possible caused by being loose with the packaging and moving around during the shipping process! This would be mainly (but not limited) to 1:72 items. I also guess that in the process of straightening the components, this would then weakened the white metal, even before the weight of the finished model introduced!

I used a set for the Academy B-17G and all the legs (main and tail wheel) buckled with the two main legs splayed outwards, while the tail wheel disappeared into the kit, as if it were fitted in a retracted position!

 

To date, the only set that I’ve used, which have worked as intended, were a set of 1:48 Mosquito main landing legs, which 3 years later, are still in good shape!

 

If I remember correctly, I think that I moved almost all of the other SAC sets on but if SAC had manufactured their sets from new, correcting any errors that existed and/or added any missing detail or even manufactured the sets from a harder material, I would possibly use them but as they are, I steer clear!

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Tony C

[Cees Broere]

I bought the Aerocraft Models brass set yesterday. They look great and the joins are pinned for a strong join.

Although very expensive, they are really worth it.

[thierry laurent]

Actually SAC has two slightly different ranges but the packaging stays the same. Only the name is slightly different. The largest one just gives copies of the kit parts whereas the other gives corrected LG parts! I do not remember the name difference but it is something like conversion and correction. Not really obvious for the non-initiated!

[thierry laurent]

Out of my mind the only correction set I know they released in 1/32 was for the Special Hobby F-80. If I'm remembering correctly the scissor was located on the wrong side of the front leg part of the kit. However, even in such a case, I would prefer modifying the kit parts myself! It looks they made far more 'corrected' sets in smaller scales, typically with shortened legs to give a better 'weighted' stance.

[Gazzas]

I bought LG legs, struts, and cabanes for the Roden Alb D. III.  I was not impressed by what I got.  Never again.

[Ali62]

2 hours ago, Cees Broere said:

I bought the Aerocraft Models brass set yesterday. They look great and the joins are pinned for a strong join.

Although very expensive, they are really worth it.

Hi Cees

 

which set did you purchase, I am just curious 

 

GENERAL NOTE

Thanks to those that have given me a vote of support in this thread and the forum, and to those that have purchased sets.

I am investigating ways to offer more undercarriage sets in the future but I need to see how to reduce or eliminate get the brass cast, as that is the very expensive part and I have no control over the price I get charged. However due to material and labour increases world wide this is not going to improve, and there is no way I can set up to cast brass in production myself. The one set that is hugely expensive is the Lancaster set for the HKM kit, the price is due sheer size and actual weight of parts and size of the mould required. I am pondering to do it for the Border kit, but possibly with some changes.

 

[cbk57]

4 hours ago, Ali62 said:

Hi Cees

 

which set did you purchase, I am just curious 

 

GENERAL NOTE

Thanks to those that have given me a vote of support in this thread and the forum, and to those that have purchased sets.

I am investigating ways to offer more undercarriage sets in the future but I need to see how to reduce or eliminate get the brass cast, as that is the very expensive part and I have no control over the price I get charged. However due to material and labour increases world wide this is not going to improve, and there is no way I can set up to cast brass in production myself. The one set that is hugely expensive is the Lancaster set for the HKM kit, the price is due sheer size and actual weight of parts and size of the mould required. I am pondering to do it for the Border kit, but possibly with some changes.

 

I personally have not used your landing gear sets yet, however if a strong landing gear is needed which I think is warranted in many 1/32 builds the higher price is worth it.  Brass gear are generally expensive anyway however I have paid those prices and been happy with the result.  For example I have used G-factor brass gear on several occasions and the landing gear when done is stronger than the model.  Also Take a Tamiya corsair with a complicated landing gear assembly a good brass set helps simplify the construction as well.  I look forward to ordering from you in the future, it would help if your website were easier to search product.  I keep you book marked and you are one of the sources I check, I did purchase your F-4C canopy replacement.

 

On my fist time using metal gear I ordered sac gear and it failed, i had to rebuild and built it with G-factor that was the one and only time I used a SAC product.  I will definitely pay the higher price for metal gear, I do not intend to build a lancaster but I would think a solid brass set essential and if you are in $500.00 for a border kit $75 bucks for landing gear does not seem outrageous for something that will last and hold the model no problem.

Edited November 23, 2022 by cbk57