The SAAF Forum

There are also "cat's balls" on the camo one in the background. I take it this is the same aerie (805) which ended up at Swartkop. I reckon this was really to test the low vis camo as the CZs days were numbered when the Cheetah's started arriving. I'm sure Piet can give more definitive info.

Hi Madmax,

Absolutely stunning and inspiring work!
The level of detail and accuracy is great as reference for those who wish to go the extra mile with this kit.
A note on the exhaust nozzle though, have you noticed the botch job Italeri made with the two halves? They should not taper like that. It seems they tried to make nozzle in the open and closed position, hence the blunder.
Keep up the great work!

Cheers,
John

_________________
www.facebook.com/scaleworx

Thanks Spice.

Malcolm, since the squadron was on an air to air camp at the time 802 was lost, the aircraft would have been in the clean configuration as per the only MADMAX photo. As a modeler it is hard to leave off all the stores they provide in the box, but I managed to this time! As per the missiles on the ACM camp - V3A/V3B is my guess.

Mars, I don't know - I am a Cheetah generation kid and don't know the big picture on that either - very secretive at the time. Really.

Bladerunner, I am at a loss on this one. I thought Italeri got the nozzles pretty close, but I must have missed something. Which taper is incorrect?

Madmax, The nozzle should be as if a wedge has been cut into the existing diameter of the engine. Italeri seems to have cut a wedge out with a closed nozzle.



Cheers,
John

_________________
www.facebook.com/scaleworx

Decals are trouble.

On SAAF subjects, despite whatever kit-makers lead you to believe on the box blurb, the decals are bound to be wrong. To be honest, South African enthusiasts can hardly agree on what is correct, so an Italian researcher is bound to miss. The biggest miss, as per usual, is the castle and bokkie. Will anyone ever get it right? I do hope so.

I measured the real castles (yes, with an unconventional method) and worked out the scale size I needed. I then searched high and low for an acceptable castle, and finally settled on the old (really old) 1:72 sheet from "S.A. Decals" in Isando, PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN it says on the yellowing sheet. 66 inch for the wing, and 54 inch for the fuselage - near exact in 1:32 scale. It is the best outline shape of the castle, and the bokkie I can find in this size, however I must mention that Leading Edge did beautiful ones on their SAAF Mk6 Sabre sheet. I just can't find any for sale in 1:32 scale. Darn! Notice the Tamiya 1:32 Spitfire decals to pinch the number "2" from for 80(2).



Enough ranting. Here is the next bit of trouble - gloss coating for a non-silvered decal finish. I am still using "Klear" (same as Future), which believe it or not, I hand brush on. I find it more controllable and less likely to orange peel than by airbrush. I am planning to stop this method however in favour of Tamiya X-22. Now to find Mr Color leveling thinner which apparently makes the X-22 like glass... good old fashioned Klear in this picture however:



A major concern of mine was the yellowed film on the castle decals, and you can see why.



So, carefully (more carefully than I did) cut out the outside of the white outline of the castle and voila! They are going to be lightly oversprayed so some little mistakes won't really show. The general look is good. See also the kit decal for the jettisonable canopy, which came off about as promptly as it went on. It must be the French version and way too big for our aircraft. The one in the IIIE/R looks much improved, but that is going on the R! If you have a very discerning eye (and many on this forum do), the answer is yes - I changed the order of the symbols on the hatch behind the canopy on purpose. They appear to have changed when painted in the blue/grey scheme. Look at how the electrical "lightning" symbol is raised - pretty thick kit decals.



Some compromises here. The squadron badge on this colour scheme doesn't have a black background, or the upper scroll, and it says SURSUM PRORSUSQUE on the lower scroll. I decided to use what I have however, and try disguise it with the overspraying and some masking fluid. Lets see. The "2" is a wee bit small, but also gets the treatment.



When attempting to place the ejection seat triangle on this side, I noticed the ladder holes as indicated in the kit are in the wrong place. Darn again! It makes quite a difference when they are in the right place, but is frustrating at this point in the build.



Based on the photo's of the ACM camp in Durban, you can see that the blue/grey C's don't have the old "Mirage IIICZ" written on the nose anymore. 802 however did. In the SA Flyer Magazine Vol.VI Issue VI "The best of SA Flyer's Glorious Flying History" there is another photograph of MADMAX, and one of 802 taken slightly earlier, in which one can clearly see the writing under some overspray.



The left side done, including a blue band around the drag-chute cone. The primer sticking out of the elevon is because I can't stop trying to smooth out imperfections in the paint or varnish such as orange peel, brush hairs etc. It does get an overspray to rescue it in this case. The piece of paper in the background gives an indication of the experimentation with the shades of grey. Oh yes, check out the broken off tip of the vertical fin, again!

Aha, Bladerunner, I see what you are saying!

I think that this photo illustrates your point.



This is 818, and 805 looks much the same. The nozzles are in a near mid-way position probably due to time and gravity, and thus the angle and space between the halves of the nozzle appear considerably less than on the kit part.

On the photo you posted, I think the nozzle is in the fully open position and the angle and gap are actually quite close to what Italeri moulded. If I could go back in time and close the halves, I suspect the lip would be vertical and flush. It would be nice to see a photo of it fully closed and compare notes.



This does not mean however that you shouldn't do your magic and provide a resin part that makes their moulding obsolete!

Yes, I concur. A resin exhaust nozzle would be the bomb

Mistral and Madmax,

If I spotted your build earlier, I could have sent you a review sample of the updated ejection seat. Mistral had the opportunity to review the earlier version. However, not to take away your efforts, as it is a vast improvement on the kit seat

I do have the idea in mind to correct the nozzle.

Here's a quick explaination of the exhaust issue in the image below. You'll see the real exhaust in the open position that remains almost parralel with the engine lines, but the kit part is tapering in the open position.



Cheers,
John

_________________
www.facebook.com/scaleworx

The T-handles are fashioned from styrene rod, and doors from strips. I use styrene from "evergreen scale models" - wonderful stuff. If you carefully look through the two decal sheets provided in the kit, you will find many useful decals.



Over-spraying the decals was a lot of fun, but requires some restraint. I didn't always have enough of this as airbrushes seem to have a will of their own in my hands.



Making masks for airbrushing is something I haven't done a lot of. In this instance I decided to try something new, and it worked quite well. The mask is cut from generic screen protector material that would normally be cut to size for a camera, and it has just the right amount of "stickiness". Yes, I know about the bit that is still stuck! The squadron badge was masked with latex masking fluid where I wanted to keep detail, then over-sprayed. I then rubbed the masking off and lightly over-sprayed again.

This forum can be very instructive. Mistral's techniques are worth noting, so I decided to give watercolor washes a bash. I like the fact that it is less invasive than the oil paint, so an over-do is easily cleaned up. It looks pretty good after a wipe with some wet toilet paper. As I mentioned before - useful stuff.





The DEFA canon blast suppressors or gas deflectors (not sure what they are called) are iconic Mirage III features. These are made with some more recycled photo-etch metal and styrene tubing. The barrels are hypodermic needles that have been heat treated over a candle.

You may recall that I cut back the nose wheel mountings, so that it fits flush with the firewall.



As a result the retraction piston has to be lengthened a bit.



The main gear is finally in place, and just requires the fitting of the brake hoses, and an additional orange electrical harness that runs the length of the leg.



Now that it is on its feet, a watercolor wash for the upper surfaces.



Due to the depth of the panel lines after I got hold of them, the wash is too prominent. Luckily with watercolor this is easily remedied.

The kit's canopy has a very thin frame that just looks wrong.



I decided to add a bit of depth to the back of the frame. It does make the canopy oversize, but in the open position one won't notice.





A bit of Tamiya polish and voila!



In a bizarre presaging of events, I made this little canopy breaking tool and decided to give the canopy one last polish...



The sensation of losing a big fish is the closest I can compare to the moment the canopy cracks. I will not dwell on it any further. I went out and ordered a replacement from Jix, as well as buying this kit. I reasoned at the time that I could borrow its canopy whilst waiting for the spare one from Italy. You may not believe this, but the IIIE/R canopy is bigger than the IIIC's and doesn't fit!



I have started working on a Hasegawa Spitfire MkVIII in the meantime, and discovered that its fuselage is too small. See, not just italeri that get the sizes wrong!

a master at work

That's a well known problem with Hasegawa kit, it used to be mentioned a lot. The funny thing though is that it's a fine kit that builds into a good looking model. Once complete its very difficult to pick up that the dimensions are incorrect, the only way you will know is when a rivet counter tells its not right.

Probably the most accurate 48 Spitfire is the ICM family that is also boxed by Revell. But that has its own challenges.

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141742650@N08/albums

Yup that's gonna be problem with any wash on deep panel lines. Maybe try some dark grey pastels. You can feather those nicely with a soft brush. Can't wait to see you finished model.