Incoming 1/48 Mirage III/5 kit

[JeffreyK]

I received my kit as well today. It's my fist Kinetic kit so I haven't got any of their other efforts to compare to. My first impression after sifting through the plastic is that I'm not very impressed by their surface detail and moulding fidelity. Most panel lines and rivets/fasteners look much wider than I'd expect from a contemporary kit and moulded-on detail looks a bit soft and fuzzy. The surface of the plastic is pebbly in places as well, for instance on the intake splitter plates...

As Jens said, it certainly looks like they did their homework with the research though, with plenty of alternate parts in various areas (two complete, differently equipped nose wheel wells!).

I can't vouch for accuracy as I know nothing about French aircraft (yet). I just love the sexy shape of the Mirage III and have been really anticipating this kit, which is why I had it on preorder with LM.

I feel a little bit let down as it all looks a bit like it's a kit form 20 years ago. I'll certainly get a resin cockpit and exhaust nozzle and do a bit of fine tuning with the rest of the kit once I get to actually build it. Which will be in 5-10 years time

Cheers

Jeffrey

Edited December 30, 2014 by JeffreyK

[Laurent]

Thanks Jens. I haven't received the kit yet and oh god it looks like it's going to be... fun ! I like ensuring that parts fit well more than detailing or weathering. I've fiddled with Amodel and old tooling HPM Mirage kits so I'm not too worried. Perhaps an alternate instruction booklet should be made including some "sand here to avoid a step between the two parts". Dunno yet. Come on mailman, bring me da kit !

Edited December 30, 2014 by Laurent

[Raymond Chung]

Got mine in the mail today, but there is a problem in the instructions. There are steps in the build that pertain to the IIIRD, as well as decals, but there is no painting/marking guide for the IIIRD. Instead there are duplicate instructions for the Aluminum finished IIIE. I am wondering if someone else with the kit has the same misprint in their instructions, if not could someone possibly scan the instruction guide for the markings for the IIIRD, and email them to me?

Thanks

Hi Hoosfoos,

Sorry that we made a mistake in manual preparation. we add the ALCAD II color guide and skip the IIIRD painting guide. We have adjusted the master copy and it will effect in next production run.

For the time being, you can view the updated page from Facebook page. IIIRD painting guide

[Raymond Chung]

I got my kit yesterday and immediately started snipping, trimming and gluing. Some of my initial fears were met, and there were new ones popping up too. From what I have seen, the shapes and proportions look good, and Kinetic have attempted to include features particular to a family of aircraft that have seen a lot of variations in detail - for example,there are two variations of outer main gear covers and their actuators; one for the IIIO and one for the other versions - I never knew there was a difference. Kinetic deserve credit for the depth of their research. However, this build is not going to be as easy as I thought, which is a shame because of the huge variations in colours and markings. The issues I have found so far are:

Air intakes. The kit has the lower part of the air intake moulded with the lower wing - good luck trying to get a level and round leading edge/lip with the shock cone in place (if following the assembly instructions). Once you've done that, you will be left with very noticeable seams that will be difficult to fill and sand smooth and then touch up with paint, and the bottom lip is also thicker than the lip moulded as part of the main air intake. The trunking features a lot more interlocking pins and holes than the Kfir kit to help positioning inside the fuselage, but it also means that deviating from the instructions (for the reasons mentioned) will make assembly more awkward. I think the breakdown of the Kfir kit worked rather well, so I don't understand why Kinetic needed to change that. What I did was to tape the fuselage halves and lower wing together, and then glue the forward part of the lower lip to the air intake, then use a very thin saw to cut the lower wing immediately in front of the flash suppressors of the guns. This will minimise the amount of cleanup in the troughs for the guns, and I could then sand the lip to consistent thickness and ensuring it is straight in side view without having to sand around the shock cone. Also, with the intakes in place and correctly positioned on the fuselage (the intake exteriors do actually fit quite well to the fuselage), you can glue the intake ducting to the intake exterior. I tried to take care here, but there will be noticeable gaps that will need filling here - a job for Milliput. When the time comes to join the inboard wall of the intakes (after painting - the instructions recommend white, but I don't think that will be appropriate for anything but the later markings? Mirage intakes always seem to be a metallic grey to me.) I plan to glue them to the intake duct, tape the intakes together where they meet in front of the compressor, locate the intake assemblies to taped together fuselage halves and then glue the intakes to their respective fuselages with liquid cement and then leave to set.

Seam lines. The tool has some complex shut-offs that has a better intention than execution. The two most prominent problem areas here are the lower front fuselage that offers no less than four different configurations and the join between the lower wing and the fuselage at the rear. Following a panel line that is far from straight makes for a more complex tool shut-line, and an increased risk of flash or burrs. These need tidying up before gluing, and that carries the risk of trimming too much which means filler needs to be used, and then one must rescribe the lost panel lines over filler. That never works well. The easier option is to ensure the joins are far away from panel lines and fine detail so one doesn't have to rescribe lost detail, but simply sand smooth and use filler if necessary. Straight join lines are easier to tool and simpler for the modeller to clean up - a win-win situation. Since Kinetic doesn't have the tooling budget of Tamiya, I feel the KISS-approach would have been better rather than trying to be too clever.

Wing. The lower outboard wing needs thinning to fit level with the upper wing along on the lower surface outboard of the notch in the leading edge. Stepped shut lines in the wheel well gives seams that are awkward to fill and sand, and the rear wing/fuselage join follows the raised panel. There will either be gaps or more trimming needed here depending on how much care you take when removing the burrs. As mentioned above, a straight shut-off in the tool would be easier to work with. I haven't noticed any unmanageable warpage in these parts though.

Cockpit. The kit has a deep recess to locate the tub, but it is tight, so make sure you deburr the tub. Also the rear wall has female locators that don't quite match the male ones on the kit fuselage. Curiously, the recessed locator groove on the sidewalls leaves a large gap towards the rear of the cockpit, and the sidewall itself is very thick with no detail whatsoever. It almost looks like the kit was engineered to take a resin cockpit that requires the removal of the entire upper forward fuselage sides (hence the need for a deep recess to locate the cockpit). It will be interesting to see how Wingman Models tackle this kit for their inevitable Super kit release of the Nesher.

So, overall a mixed bag. It is the best Mirage IIIE in 1:48 scale, and there are plenty of options to accommodate the numerous variations of this aircraft. Some of the options in the kit aren't specified as belonging to which version or time period, so additional research by the modeller is necessary. There will be a bit of cleaning up needed, and detail in some areas are sparse. The main hubs for example do not have any nut and bolt detail on the outside face at all - even the old Esci Mirage IIIE/V had that. The real nozzle is quite a complex assembly, and the single piece in the kit cannot hope to do justice to it, although the afterburner and flameholder is sufficiently deeply buried to look acceptable. For me this was the most anticipated kit of the year, and I do admit I feel slightly disappointed in that I was hoping for an easier assembly and somewhat higher level of detail to allow a larger collection of Mirages on the shelf with less effort.

Jens

Dear Jens,

Thanks for your feedback and we will listen and put your feedback directly into the engineering review for up and coming tooling consideration.

I would like to express here that the Mirage IIIE is another "French F-16" projects which involve so many lump and bump. Although you may be not really satify with the item that you want, we already got a long way since the F-16 era.

Like many multi-role, multi-operator aircraft, the problem on research, shape, version... etc consume a large amount of time and resources. Hopefully we do it 95% right, also, the parts breakdown for variants would create more fitting problem. We have tried our best approach to avoid parts breakdown problem. But in the end, nothing perfect.

As for the intake truck, intake and bottom wing design. We listen to KFIR feedback. The KFIR breakdown cut the intake from top to the end, an easier approach to provide a smooth intake. However, some customer feedback the bottom wing large seam line would be difficult to fill and once sand it with filler, they have to redo the panel detail on the bottom. Therefore, in Mirage IIIE, we redesign the intake breakdown, so the bottom wing detail would not lose due to the seam line (actually, no seam line at the bottom now). But the intake parts would require some fill and sand. In view of the area being affected, in Mirage IIIE, we try this approach. Well, as I said, no perfect solution. Once we fix the bottom wing panel line, we have to deal with the intake seam line sanding. During the test build (I am painting a silver one), the intake seam filling is workable and redo the panel with smaller area. The KFIR breakdown, would be quite difficult to get ride of the seam since too many detail around the seam line. Therefore, in Mirage IIIE, we use the intake with lesser panel line. Well, it depend on the result feedback from customer which one is better for them.

As for the bottom random parts, we cut the parts according to the shape of the panel line. Suppose we use the KISS approach, we will have to send and fill and redo the panel. We hope we can do good enough on the join with minimal sanding.

Another point that I would like to mention is when joining the bottom wing to the fueslage, one join is not doing too good is the area around the NLG bay. Since we design the kit with Mirage IIIS/RS in mind, therefore, we provide the longer and shorter NLG wheel bay. Again, more parts alignment would create more fitting issue. But I think an average modelling skill can fit it up with good result.

As for the cockpit, yes, we design our kit with aftermarket replacement in mind. Unlike other kit maker, we aim to provide an affordable price tag product with longer selling cycle (that means the customer can build multiple of it). Therefore, we try to take a 20/80 policy to determine what detail should be included and what detail should be left to aftermarket company. The consumer can determine what area they want to enhance according to their specified need. If you have 1/35 armor experience, you will notice that a recent trend in simply the material type and content to simple and lesser parts design.

For the manual, sorry that we cannot meet your expectation with explain of which version should be used. We mainly separate the version into MIRAGE IIIE/O, R/RD, however, if you ask which top handler should be used for particular batch of MIRAGE IIIE/O, we don't provide. We just know it is optional, but specified to which airframe ? Well, it is one of the funs of modelling to look for the particular jet that we want to replicate.

More feedback are welcome.

[Airfixer]

Got mine today, and I must say that I'm quite taken with it.

As to overall detailing and casting quality it is what I've been expecting and experiencing from previous Kinetic releases.

Jens already pointed out some of the "challenges" and I largely agree with him.

Personally speaking, I can live that and I'm gladly willing to accept some extra effort in assembling the kit.

As to shape and proportions of the Mirage IIIE, Kinetic did a really good job in rendering the subject, hence meeting one of my personal key criteria in assessing a kit's "accuracy" - it looks right. At least those parts, I've just double-checked with scale drawings and photographs. Fuselage and wings in particular.

I'm eager to see how long it will take until the usual (aftermarket) suspects will show up with some nice stuff.

Just as Raymond said, their Mirage III/5 family is here to stay and not supposed to be a flash in the pan.

On my part, kudos to Kinetic. Keep it up.

Cheers,

Erik

Edited December 31, 2014 by Airfixer

[Dmanton300]

As ever Raymond, your willingness to actually engage with your customer base and explain your thought processes, and also discuss issues openly and honestly with a view to improvement is to be applauded, thank you.

[Petarvu]

As ever Raymond, your willingness to actually engage with your customer base and explain your thought processes, and also discuss issues openly and honestly with a view to improvement is to be applauded, thank you.

Totaly agree!

[jenshb]

As ever Raymond, your willingness to actually engage with your customer base and explain your thought processes, and also discuss issues openly and honestly with a view to improvement is to be applauded, thank you.

Concur!

Jens

[Dmanton300]

FWIW my fuselage is together with no real dramas. The lower nose panel was held in place and a bead of CA saw to the join in minutes. I did however deviate somewhat. I remember all the Eduard IIIC's i've built and how their truncated intake bell looks just fine - you literally cannot see A THING past an inch or so past the shock cones. SO I just sawed the rear half of the ducts off and backed it with black plastic card. No fiddling with those intake ducts that you can't even see the back of. I can just pop the intakes on at my leisure with no worries now.

Some aircraft (F-14, F-15, Harrier) NEED good inlet ducting back to the compressor face, the Mirage is definitely NOT one of them! All hail the shock cone of blankingness!

[Laurent]

I did however deviate somewhat. I remember all the Eduard IIIC's i've built and how their truncated intake bell looks just fine - you literally cannot see A THING past an inch or so past the shock cones. SO I just sawed the rear half of the ducts off and backed it with black plastic card. No fiddling with those intake ducts that you can't even see the back of. I can just pop the intakes on at my leisure with no worries now.

Well perhaps a full trunking up to the compressor isn't necessary but at least a partial trunking must be provided IMHO. Here's my partially built AMK Kfir (it's in the Half-Built Kit Cemetery because of the almost non-existent fuselage area ruling )...

... and I don't think that the complete lack of trunking looks too good.

[Dmanton300]

Well perhaps a full trunking up to the compressor isn't necessary but at least a partial trunking must be provided IMHO.

Which is what I now have - Partial trunking to past the major contour change, just without worrying about them lining up on the internal bulkheads and forcing it all into place. They went into place just fine.

[Laurent]

Outdated

Edited January 10, 2015 by Laurent

[Check Six]

More feedback are welcome.

Please do a 1/32nd scale version of this kit!

[El pibe vitina]

I still didn't receive the kit but a friend has scanned me the instruction booklet. I've debugged it a little. Here are the edited pages:

Me too, I dindt bought the kit waiting for reviews and more opinions. But a friend of mine sent me the instructions today.

Seems you fixed those inaccuracies in the instruction you posted... Did you? Cause in my scanned copy this step is wrong:

Argentinean Mirages IIIEA dont have the doppler bulge under cockpit.

An for those interested in IIIEA Falklands era, bear in mind that this is a post war adition:

Im mainly concerned by the shape of the 1700L drop tanks.

Im not sure, and still searching in muy resources, but for the RP30 tanks, the release of the old ESCI/Italeri have the correct shape in the fins area:

And again speaking about MIIIEA and other Magic users, the missile launcher have this "cranked" layout:

Bye for now...

[Laurent]

And again speaking about MIIIEA and other Magic users, the missile launcher have this "cranked" layout:

Parts are there but not in the instruction booklet.

[El pibe vitina]

Parts are there but not in the instruction booklet.

Yeah, I suppose it, but we need another pieces to do the angled or cranked layout of these launchers. Its not a big problem, easy to fix.

Bye for now..

PS: My concern about the RP30 tanks was true, this picture shows the fin shapes, more accurate in the Italeri pieces:

Edited January 1, 2015 by El pibe vitina

[jenshb]

Personally I like to see full depth intakes, although little can be seen. However, the illusion that the Eduard Mirage IIIC kit brings is not bad - at least it doesn't just end in a black flat surface.

As for the 1700 liter tanks, I googled some pics of Mirage 5SDE, and the best pics appear to be predelivery ones, and the tanks on those pics look similar to what the kit provides (and reused from the Mirage 2000 kit).

Jens

[Laurent]

As for the 1700 liter tanks, I googled some pics of Mirage 5SDE, and the best pics appear to be predelivery ones, and the tanks on those pics look similar to what the kit provides (and reused from the Mirage 2000 kit).

Yup. Reshaping of the fins should be enough for a number of people.

[spang]

Hi,

Happy New Year for all member of the ARC

That's not the first ime we see "some problems" with Air intake and you need time to fix it...

-F-14 Tomcat Hasegawa 1:48,

-F-18 Hornet or Super Hornet Hasegawa 1:48,

-Sea Vixen Airfix 1:48

...

Cheers

Pat

[Hoosfoos]

Can anyone identify the parts needed to produce an accurate Mirage 5, and if any of these parts are in the box?

Edited January 1, 2015 by Hoosfoos

[jenshb]

You're lacking the nose to do a Mirage 5 - unless you count the Mirage 5SDE which was in practice a Mirage IIIE bought by the Saudis for the Egyptian Air Force. The Eagle Designs Nesher nose seems to fit rather well though, and the Esci/Italeri kit nose should be a rasonable fit too.

Jens

[Laurent]

Can anyone identify the parts needed to produce an accurate Mirage 5, and if any of theses parts are in the box?

Mirage 5 just means it's an export Mirage. No specific shape features. Please tell us what precise version you're interested in.

[Niels]

Mirage 5 just means it's an export Mirage. No specific shape features.

Not quite - the V doesn't have the radar of the IIIE, and hence has a longer, slender nose profile.

[Laurent]

Not quite - the V doesn't have the radar of the IIIE, and hence has a longer, slender nose profile.

Google Mirage 5SDE, 5EAD and 5DE

Edited January 1, 2015 by Laurent

[11bee]

Google Mirage 5SDE, 5EAD and 5DE

The designation scheme is a bit convoluted but I'm pretty certain the vast majority of M-5's had a slimmer, radar-less nose. I thought I read that the 5 was originally designed on behalf of the Israelis who felt that the original Cyrano radar in the III was useless. They wanted a lighter, simpler aircraft for VFR combat / ground attack. It never got delivered to them because of French political considerations.