White Metal Replacement Undercarriage Legs

Scale Aircraft Conversions

Reviewed by Mark Davies

HyperScale is proudly sponsored by Squadron.com

Scale Aircraft Conversion’s (SAC) range of white metal replacement undercarriage legs, and occasionally with wheels, is well established and should be familiar at least to many modellers through reviews and advertising. Each set comes well packaged on a card header with clear bubble plastic pack.

My exposure to SAC was limited to seeing on-line reviews, until some years ago I purchased replacement legs for the quite heavy Anigrand C-124 resin kit. The SAC legs were ok strength-wise, but no more detailed than Anigrand’s resin ones as far as I can recall (I’ve since disposed of the kit and legs).

Until undertaking this review I was generally skeptical of the value of replacement metal undercarriages. I now have slightly more mixed feelings about them having seen more of the product. So rather than write a blow by blow description of the individual sets I will rely on the images to show you what each set has to offer. Instead I shall outline the pros and cons as I see them for replacement metal undercarriages in general.

The Case for Metal Legs

As a dedicated 1/72-scale builder of injected styrene and resin kits, there have been few occasions where I needed the extra strength white metal legs offer over kit items; Anigrand’s C-124 and Heller’s Constellation nose leg being the only two I can think of. This absence of need would also generally hold true for many of my mates’ 1/48 and 1/32 scale models that I have seen. One friends’s 1/48 Monogram F-105 has even survived three house moves and several years of display despite its lanky legs and thin parts where the wheels attach.

I can think of metal legs sometimes being useful, not because the kit legs cannot support the model, but because the kit legs leave some models quite vulnerable to handling damage. These would include fighters like Bf 109s and Spitfires, because in 1/72-scale at least their legs are very easy to snap off where the fit into the wing. I find these quite a pain to repair satisfactorily by drilling and reinforcing the break with wire. I do accept that some heavier large-scale kits might benefit too. So the case for added strength might find justification for models that are handled or moved a lot, but it is a limited argument.

When I looked at the full range of replacement undercarriages offered by SAC I could not see all that many that could be justified by an overwhelming need for strength and weight bearing (although some of the subjects covered might gain a small benefit from being more robust when handled). With this in mind I decided to look for any other benefits, such as refinement over kit parts.

I had several of the 1/72-scale kits that the sets reviewed here are intended for. After comparing the sets SAC kindly supplied HyperScale to kit parts, I concluded that they are simply unenhanced metal copies of the kit items. There is nothing wrong in this as such, but it eliminates a potential advantage of offering extra detail over kit parts. To be fair, I have read the one modelling forum comment attributing improved detail to SAC’s product for the Hasegawa 1/48 Fw 190A kit, but this was not apparent to me when I extended my search via SAC’s web-site product photos of 1/72 sets I could compare to my own kits. I compared these to various kits I had and they all seemed to be direct copies. One notable set however is intended for Hasegawa’s B-26 which replaced a cockpit floor, nose-wheel well and bulkheads with white metal parts to serve as ballast. This is a great idea in my view.

Unfortunately I am unaware as to whether any of the subjects reviewed here have inaccurate undercarriages that could be have been corrected by Scale Aircraft Conversions. I did not notice any claims by SAC to be correcting kit items on their web-site. However a “Plane Talking” string I read awhile ago indicates that SAC’s replacement set for Eduard’s 1/48-scale F6F Hellcat kit does correct the excessive length of the kit parts.

So far I seem to be generally confirming the case for there being few subjects that can justify the additional expense of metal copies of kit undercarriages. But modelling is for many, at some level at least, an emotional hobby. And I have to confess that I liked all of the samples I reviewed here at some sort of gut level. There is something satisfying about the robust metallic nature, and I regardless of how unnecessary they might be in many cases, I suspect a model using metal legs will somehow have a better “feel” to it. Silly I know; but it’s a bit like the odd Dragon 1/72-scale AFV kit that has a metal hull feels better to handle than its all styrene brethren, or a quality diecast 1/24-scale model car compared to a plastic one.

Overall, with the odd exception where there is truly a case for strength, I think that the justification for these white metal undercarriages is largely an emotional one. Either on the basis of liking to work with different media, or of having the (often unnecessary) assurance of extra strength. If so, then any of these sets could be for you. Personally I’d like to see some for single-legged 1/72-scale WW2 fighters like Bf 109’s etc, which on my modelling bench at least suffer a few handling accidents from time to time.

So as promised, rather than comment individually about the nine review sets, here are the images for readers to judge for themselves.

14404 – Airbus A319, 321 & 322 (2 Sets for Revell 1/144)

72023 – DC-3, C-47 (For Italeri/Revell 1/72)

72024 – Tu-22 Backfire (For Trumpeter 1/72)

72025 – P-61 Black Widow (For Dragon/DML 1/72)

72026 – PB4Y-2 Privateer (For Matchbox/Revell 1/72)

72027 – B-52 Stratofortress (For Monogram 1/72)

72029 – B-17G Flying Fortress (For Revell new tool 1/72)

72030 – He 177 (For Revell 1/72)

32049 – Polikarpov I-16 type 24 (For Special Hobby 1/32)

The nine sets reviewed here are all nicely produced and well packaged, but I consider none of these sets are necessary for added strength by their intended recipient kits. However, I do accept that there will be a few kits in genuine need of the added strength offered by a replacement metal undercarriage.  Disappointingly, the sets seem to generally offer no improvement in appearance compared to the kit parts (the Eduard F6F case excepted).

My overall assessment is that they have no failings compared to kit parts but, with a few exceptions, offer no significant benefits either.

Personally, I would only buy white metal legs for kits I was convinced needed them for strength over the kit parts. Whilst I like SAC’s product for the sense of solidity it offers, it would not be enough for me to part with my money for that reason alone. 

In contrast to my miserliness, I suspect for many others that liking the product is enough to make them buy it. After all, SAC would not still offering such a range if they did not have a following!

Thanks to Scale Aircraft Conversions for the review samples.

Review Text & Images Copyright © 2011 by Mark Davies
Page Created 13 June, 2011
Last updated 13 June, 2011

Back to HyperScale Main Page