Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
dai phan

Scale Aircraft Conversion Metal Gears. Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, dnl42 said:

Here's a comparison of the LG from Monogram's 1/48 F-105D. This is the nose gear; it's in two halves, left and right.

LG-Mon0.jpg

Here's the MLG

LG-Mon1.jpg

 

The Monogram main gear actuators

LG-Mon2.jpg

The SAC main gear actuators

LG-SAC1.jpg

 

All of the SAC bits

LG-SAC0.jpg

 

And finally G-Factor. These are white bronze. The actuators, off the to side of each MLG, are very different looking compared to both the Monogram and SAC bits.

LG-GF.jpg

 

Here is the MLG from a walkaround on ARC

18RMainGear3.jpg

 

HTH

-- 

dnl

 

The G factor gears are worth buying. Same for bronze Eduards gear. SAC is a poor copy of the original. If you lose a kit gear, better to buy a whole new kit then shelling out 20 bucks for some poor weak SAC copy of the originals. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Darren pointed out, I have used SAC undercarriage sets for missing gear from kits, or for my vacuum formed kits (where available).  I received a Monogram 1/48 F-106A kit missing its front L/G, so spending $13 for a set of SAC u/c legs was reasonable and necessary.  Also, I purchased the SAC 1/144 DC-8 double set (for Minicraft kits) to replace the grossly inaccurate u/c legs on my two Revell DC-8 kits. However, for my large vacuum formed kits: Airways VAC 1/72 HS Nimrod MR.2P,  Airmodel 1/72 C-124 Globemaster, NOVA 1/72 KC-135A and Execuform 1/72 CC-109 Cosmopolitan, I used SAC versus scratching my own u/c legs (I know that SAC does not make a 1/72 CV-340 gear leg, so I purchased a P-3C set & will modify it. Same with P-3C props.)  However, SAC did modify the Monogram 1/48 F-8E Crusader main u/c legs to raise the stance of the kit, which is a great improvement.  HTH, Dutch

Edited by Dutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dutch said:

As Darren pointed out, I have used SAC undercarriage sets for missing gear from kits, or for my vacuum formed kits (where available).  I received a Monogram 1/48 F-106A kit missing its front L/G, so spending $13 for a set of SAC u/c legs was reasonable and necessary.  Also, I purchased the SAC 1/144 DC-8 double set (for Minicraft kits) to replace the grossly inaccurate u/c legs on my two Revell DC-8 kits. However, for my large vacuum formed kits: Airways VAC 1/72 HS Nimrod MR.2P,  Airmodel 1/72 C-124 Globemaster, NOVA 1/72 KC-135A and Execuform 1/72 CC-109 Cosmopolitan, I used SAC versus scratching my own u/c legs (I know that SAC does not make a 1/72 CV-340 gear leg, so I purchased a P-3C set & will modify it. Same with P-3C props.)  However, SAC did modify the Monogram 1/48 F-8E Crusader main u/c legs to raise the stance of the kit, which is a great improvement.  HTH, Dutch

 

Then SAC can't be as bad as I thought. I am waiting for the SAC F104 gear and I will let you all know of my verdict. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAC soft & cr@pp¥ stuff really is awful, and completely useless in 1/32, or 1/48 cantilever or splayed u/c legs.

 

I have bought a lot. I would rate Aerocraft, G-Factor and Brassin as worth buying. How much have I bought? Legs for 3 x Bf 109Gs, one Fw 190, two Meteors, one F-8J, two Spitfires, one I-16, one Eurofighter all in 1/32 and worth every penny.

The SAC stuff, by comparison, is pure crap and not even heavy enough to relegate as a nose weight. 

 

Don't waste your money. How SAC have survived this long bewilders me. I'm guessing people just buy and stash, and don't realise it's inferior to the kit parts.

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, tony.t said:

The SAC soft & cr@pp¥ stuff really is awful, and completely useless in 1/32, or 1/48 cantilever or splayed u/c legs.

 

I have bought a lot. I would rate Aerocraft, G-Factor and Brassin as worth buying. How much have I bought? Legs for 3 x Bf 109Gs, one Fw 190, two Meteors, one F-8J, two Spitfires, one I-16, one Eurofighter all in 1/32 and worth every penny.

The SAC stuff, by comparison, is pure crap and not even heavy enough to relegate as a nose weight. 

 

Don't waste your money. How SAC have survived this long bewilders me. I'm guessing people just buy and stash, and don't realise it's inferior to the kit parts.

 

Tony

It is hard to imagine SAC is still putting out gears after gears... I don't get it. I will let you know my verdict of the F104 gears when I get them. Dai 

Edited by dai phan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 1:38 PM, tony.t said:

The SAC soft & cr@pp¥ stuff really is awful, and completely useless in 1/32, or 1/48 cantilever or splayed u/c legs.

 

I have bought a lot. I would rate Aerocraft, G-Factor and Brassin as worth buying. How much have I bought? Legs for 3 x Bf 109Gs, one Fw 190, two Meteors, one F-8J, two Spitfires, one I-16, one Eurofighter all in 1/32 and worth every penny.

The SAC stuff, by comparison, is pure crap and not even heavy enough to relegate as a nose weight. 

 

Don't waste your money. How SAC have survived this long bewilders me. I'm guessing people just buy and stash, and don't realise it's inferior to the kit parts.

 

Tony

I got the F104 gears today. SAC offering is just a copy of the original parts without any added details. The metal seems stronger than the SAC Mig 17 gears that collapsed on their own. So if you lost a gear and need a replacement ( IF the new kit is way more than the SAC), then it is a viable option. If you think you NEED stronger gear ( and you don't really- I have 45 years experience ) or more details/corrections then you are not gaining anything. SAC is more of a replacement option rather than enhancement. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those F-105 gears from G-Factor look really nice. They even managed to cast the thin hydraulic lines. How they do that is beyond me. Some kind of centrifugal casting to force liquid metal into the fine details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can probably count the amount of sets of SAC gear that I have. I think 3 sets. I never bit the buy it bug as they seemed not great based on the review pictures I saw. One set that is an improvement is the nose gear for the 1/32nd Trumpeter A-4E Skyhawk. When Trumpeter released their kit they were basically "inspired" by Hasegawa's 1/48th release. Hasegawa in their infinite wisdom moulded the nose wheel to the nose gear strut. SAC separated the wheel from the gear. Details did not blow me away and I may even change that wheel if I can find something or use what came in the 1/32nd Hasegawa kti which I also have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mstor said:

Those F-105 gears from G-Factor look really nice. They even managed to cast the thin hydraulic lines. How they do that is beyond me. Some kind of centrifugal casting to force liquid metal into the fine details?

I agree, they're quite nice and worth the cost.

 

If anybody wants those SAC gear I showed, PM me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dnl42 said:

If anybody wants those SAC gear I showed, PM me...

:rofl::thatfunny:

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mstor said:

:rofl::thatfunny:

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself :thumbsup:

Oh, I understand--notice I didn't even say you'd need to pay postage! :action-smiley-081:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dnl42 said:

I agree, they're quite nice and worth the cost.

 

If anybody wants those SAC gear I showed, PM me...

I wouldnt take em as a gift.
I think metal gear really is pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ElectroSoldier said:

I think metal gear really is pointless

 

Yes, if it is like the SAC stuff, poor copies of the kit gear. But if it is like G-Factor and is more accurate and/or more detailed than the kit gear, then I think it might be worth it. Like the G-Factor F-105 gear, with very nice looking hydraulic lines cast on the main gear. I'm going to be looking for a set of those. I think they would be worth it as my fingers don't have the dexterity needed to add those lines myself anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mstor said:

 

Yes, if it is like the SAC stuff, poor copies of the kit gear. But if it is like G-Factor and is more accurate and/or more detailed than the kit gear, then I think it might be worth it. Like the G-Factor F-105 gear, with very nice looking hydraulic lines cast on the main gear. I'm going to be looking for a set of those. I think they would be worth it as my fingers don't have the dexterity needed to add those lines myself anymore.

About that I really couldnt say either way, Ive never actually seen G-Factor parts, not gonna lie, so yeah Ill have to say I havent a clue about them but SAC metal landing gear Ive tried and it was a waste of money. The B-1B set is pointless for instance. I think the F-100D Monogram kit was the same and a couple of others, Ive only used them 3-4 times and decided after the last one to never bother again.

 

G-Factor I cant comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a set of G-Factor for a 105.  My only complaint is that the metal is so hard I could not cut it using ordinary hobby tools. Nicely detailed tho.

 

Geoff M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ElectroSoldier said:

I wouldnt take em as a gift.
I think metal gear really is pointless

Unless the metal gears offer substantial detail enhancement, they are useless and pointless. SAC is just an average copy of the kit's parts. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14 February 2020 at 12:27 AM, dai phan said:

If you think you NEED stronger gear ( and you don't really- I have 45 years experience ) or more details/corrections then you are not gaining anything. SAC is more of a replacement option rather than enhancement. Dai 

 

I've been building kits since 1965 and certain ones stand out as needing metal replacements, of a quality type such as Aeroclub, Aerocraft, Brassin & G-Factor

 

The Monogram 1/48 F-105 used to do a hula dance every time I came into the room, until it failed — I started buying hard, solid, properly cast gear when I got the 1/32 Trumpeter F-105G seventeen years ago and buy them for all larger scale kits if the U/C is splayed (e.g. Bf109, Spitfire), stalky (F-105, Fw 190) or cantilever (Meteor, F/A-18) or a combination (F-8). 

 

But SAC castings, by comparison, are utterly unfit for purpose. 

 

Tony 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new name for SAC gears. It is called Upwind. It uses the same SAC gears. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think so. I have the upwind gear and they are fantastic in quality 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sturm said:

I don’t think so. I have the upwind gear and they are fantastic in quality 

I look at Upwind gears and they look identical to SAC. Maybe some are different? I will post the photos here later. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the gears from Upwind (silver background) and SAC (blue background) mPbDaC8.jpgAMyPE1C.jpgfor the Hasegawa F104 1/48. What do you think? Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all

I just got the 1/48 Upwind F104 gears and I compared them to the SAC ones. Virtually identical and the metal on the UW is even softer than the SAC. Absolutely NO improvements over the kit parts or over each other. If you have to get a replacement then get the SAC because the metal is harder. Dai 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...