Jump to content

SAC White Metal Legs - Quality Control Anyone?


Recommended Posts

Hi Chris,

all good, thanks ! Hope you're fine too :)

 

IMHO white metal landing gears are not the best solution but can be useful in some situations, like replacing the parts on older and less detailed kits or replacing parts that broke during assembly and can't be repaired. With some landing gear geometries I'd be very concerned with the long term behaviour of these parts but then there are situations when they are the only solution.

Personally I rarely bother with metal legs but it's undeniable that with some kits plastic is not enough and something sturdier is preferrable.

Hope you can sort your legs, I've had to repair white metal legs before, it's a pain but can be done

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6. 4. 2018 at 7:10 AM, exdraken said:

By the way, has  anyone a good idea for the Academy/Italeri Hunter in 1/48? 

Does it need re-enforced legs?

 

I used the kit legs on my Academy Hunter without any issues. I don't know how they go with the Aires wheel bay... But the plane itself even with resin cockpit and other stuff isn't heavy enough to pressure the legs...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about bent legs on the white metal undercarriage sets or the crooked wheel look on the plastic kit parts one is supposed to avoid using the SAC sets?

It's two different things to me.

I've bought SAC white metal legs to go with my 1/48 Monogram F-8 kit both in order to solve the issue about the height on the plastic part, and also because I've seen the wheels crook with age on a finished kit of the same subject by a fellow modeller.

My SAC legs have neither bent nor the wheels crooked. 

On ‎03‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 6:14 PM, spruecutter96 said:

My thinking is use the SAC metal legs and construct a wood & plastic cradle for your model to sit on. It might not be very "purist" of me, but it has to be preferable to seeing the legs bent and/or broken a year down the line.  

Chris, this is what I did to avoid crooked wheels on my builds on display - those which have been sitting for more than 20+ years on the cabinets. But this was before SAC white metal legs were available. In addition to the set for the 1/48 F-8 Crusader, I also bought the set for the F-105, and mostly I bought it to avoid the crooked look on the wheels occurring after the built kit has been sitting for a long spell.

Are we speaking about the crooked wheels here? Do SAC legs bend with time under the weight of the model...?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris

 

I've always been wary of the SAC products, mostly for the reasons already stated about QC and lack of any innovative design. I did, however, buy one set - after careful consideration and having had a chance to look at the product before purchase.

 

I have their u/c set for the Revell 48th F-15E. The design of the original undercarriage is very good and this, I think, helps the SAC product. Haven't built the kit yet, but have spent some time checking out the SAC legs and they seem fit for purpose - though whether they're really necessary is another thing. I'm adding a full load of resin weapons with the build, so decided to try the SAC legs (but I'll keep the original legs, just in case - especially after reading the experiences of others in this thread :smile: ).

 

Kev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone for the replies. 

 

I have read a few posts on BM and two other sites, stating that - over time - SAC metal legs have a nasty tendency to bend or even collapse. Maybe not the best recommendation for the product.... To my mind, their single greatest weakness is that they're cast from cheap-as-chips, not-renowed-for-its-durability white metal. I can't help feeling that it's like making wind-breaks out of straw. 

 

Chris.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be said that the F-105 has the worst possible u/c legs for a plastic kit, especially one in 32nd scale.  They are incredibly long, thin and spindly and they have that feature that bends away from the main leg from about half way down.  This last bit means that it is impossible to get one metal rod through the whole length of the leg.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 71chally said:

It has to be said that the F-105 has the worst possible u/c legs for a plastic kit, especially one in 32nd scale.  They are incredibly long, thin and spindly and they have that feature that bends away from the main leg from about half way down.  This last bit means that it is impossible to get one metal rod through the whole length of the leg.

True... very true, 71chally. 

 

I am thinking more and more, maybe just build the blooming kit and worry about the longevity of its legs later. Is life too short for this type of thing?

 

Chris. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble with some model u/c legs is that the real thing's load paths, material strength and multi pieced assembly doesn't translate in to a scaled down sturdy one piece of work ( and that's just to stand still and sit there) with rapid changes in cross section, some of which are 90 deg joints on round sections. It just looks like one (sometimes) The Thunderchief's main leg is a perfect example. Its built to fit in a very small space in a high ish set, thin high speed wing and intake angle which is why the oleo is short and the wheel is inside the long arch of that lower leg and axle assembly. Trying to get that in to tiny plastic / Monkey Metal leg even if its 1/32nd and do the job is always going to be difficult .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/04/2018 at 18:58, spruecutter96 said:

Thanks to everyone for the replies. 

 

I have read a few posts on BM and two other sites, stating that - over time - SAC metal legs have a nasty tendency to bend or even collapse. Maybe not the best recommendation for the product.... To my mind, their single greatest weakness is that they're cast from cheap-as-chips, not-renowed-for-its-durability white metal. I can't help feeling that it's like making wind-breaks out of straw. 

 

Chris.  

 

I know it’s rather silly because the whole point of ‘upgrading’ your kit with metal legs is so that they will be stronger and possibly add more detail.

Things which SAC do neither of because being soft metal and a direct copy warts and all of the kit parts. 

I wonder how they are still in business?

 

Surely if kits need metal undercarriage to support their own weight then they should come with it?

Like hobbyboss has done with their recent MiG-31 series in 1/48th. They have rod cores that are cased in two halves of plastic or complete sections in metal. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some manufacturers are starting to realise this, AMK did those legs for the MiG-31 and as you say HB did it as well. The technology is there so it can be done.

 

The Monogram F-8 needed replacements because they used a museum example sat very low for the legs.

 

Julien

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm using thin kit legs (or as a the moment making complex shaped legs from plastic rod) I like to stffen the plastic with a very thin skin of superglue

 

When it hardens it adds lots of stiffness without making the items obviously thicker

 

I've tried white metal legs on my Catalina, am I impressed?

 

No

 

😩

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...