In the article an insert box describes the camouflage as follows:-
Upper surfaces: mottled olive green and brown overall. Under surfaces: light grey. Japanese red disc insignia outlined in white appears on upper wing surfaces and fuselage sides and without white outline on under wing surfaces. Unit marking appears in white on the vertical tail surfaces.
The colour of the spinner which appears in the same tone as the insignia on the plan is not mentioned, but in the UPC box art tail insignia and spinner are both depicted as yellow. The box art also depicts orange yellow wing leading edge IFF strips which are omitted on the RAFFR plan view. Note also on the RAFFR under surface plan view the representation of heavy exhaust stains across the undercarriage covers, incorrectly interpreted as paint in some early illustrations. The stains are shown in a different (and incorrect) position on the RAFFR profile view.
The article (shown above) also includes an annotated cutaway illustration and four photos of the aircraft, one of which shows a 102nd Sentai Hayate which might or might not have a mottled finish but is usually depicted in a weathered and worn solid finish, often brown of various shades.
The same photo also featured on the 1972 Tamiya 1/48 Hayate kit instructions (shown above), although not one of the decal options offered in the kit. In Tamiya's 1964 'Flight Series' 1/72 Hayate kit the scheme is depicted as dark green mottle over natural metal and the aircraft presented as belonging to the 52nd Sentai. The Revell 1964 1/72 Hayate kit (box art at foot) has a similarly tapered cowling as presented in the RAFVR plan view. Of note is that the photograph appears to show a white border on the underwing hinomaru not picked up in the depictions.
In an era of sparse references for Japanese aircraft the RAFFR articles and colour profiles had an influence but the 1971 Aircam Aviation Series No.29 on Hayate did not follow suit, the Richard Ward profile F2 depicting the aircraft in a solid green scheme with mottled or weathered rear fuselage only (shown above). If the dubious RAFFR/UPC scheme takes your fancy then nothing wrong in applying it to a model which would then be simply a 3D representation of those historic interpretations. No harm done if presented as such.
Image credit: RAFFR pages © 1957 The Royal Air Force Review Ltd; Tamiya kit instruction sheet © 1972 Tamiya Inc; Aircam Profile © 1971 Osprey Publishing Ltd & Richard Ward; Box art © 1964 Revell Inc.