It’s easy to dismiss a few grams here and there as insignificant, but on the models where weight matters most, small savings genuinely compound.
Power-to-weight ratio is the whole game on 3D models. A model built for hovering, torque rolls, and other low-speed, high-power manoeuvres lives or dies on its power-to-weight ratio — every gram saved anywhere on the airframe is a gram the engine or motor doesn’t have to work as hard to move, which directly affects how “floaty” and controllable the model feels at low airspeed.
Landing gear is a good place to look, because it’s unsprung, extremity-mounted weight. Weight at the end of a gear leg, well away from the model’s centre of gravity, has a disproportionate effect on how the model handles gear-adjacent manoeuvres compared to the same weight saved somewhere near the CG — which is part of why carbon fibre gear (see Day 2) is such a popular first upgrade specifically for 3D-oriented models.
It’s not just the gear itself — wheels matter too (see Day 7), since wheel weight is rotating mass at the very end of the gear leg, arguably an even more sensitive location than the gear leg’s own weight.
Diminishing returns are real, though. Chasing grams on landing gear while ignoring far larger weight savings available elsewhere on the model (battery selection, unnecessary scale detailing, control horn hardware) is a common mistake — gear upgrades are worth doing, but they’re one part of an overall weight-conscious build, not a silver bullet on their own.
If you’re building or upgrading specifically for 3D or serious aerobatic flying, it’s worth thinking about landing gear weight as part of the same conversation as motor, battery, and prop selection — not a separate, purely cosmetic decision.
Take a look at our Carbon fibre undercarriage for 70 size nitro or electric models – narrow for a solid example of correctly sized gear.