SchizophrenicMC

IAD's SV-51 uses ducted fans, not props. You can use Jet turbines, as well, to power R/C flight. Moving on, no need to explain our beloved VF-1 to us, Wanzerfan. Also, stop using Battloid as the term for Battroid. People will get angry. Turret - a rotary weapons mount Turrent - made-up portmanteau of Turret and Torrent Cannon - a weapon Canon - relating to a story, but not necessarily explained in the story's original content

2 seaters, armor, and delta-winged for the win. I wouldn't mind a MAXL, as long as it's not pink and doesn't have speaker boobs... Also, maybe less feminized feet.

I just try to avoid 1/60 VF-1s to start with. 1/48 FTW! That said, I like having the option to halve my weapons storage space.

Not to mention, the hero is always assigned to defend them in his smaller, more agile, nearly-indestructible, bipedal mech.

Exactly right, Mike. And rockets and missiles have a common design feature: guidance fins. These fins generate enough lift at high speed to maintain a missile's airworthtiness. However, as soon as speeds drop below the specific speed/lift point, they lose effectiveness. Space Shuttle launches vertically, where "lift" is an improper term. It does generate lift, in the form of the whole aparatus being pulled backwards, in relation to the shuttle. However, thrust is the equal and opposite reaction to the gases being ejected from the nozzles. Thus, one cannot use vertical flight as an example of lift-less flight. The point stands that there are 2 types of flight: Lighter-than-air and lift-based. In either situation, flight can be maintained indefinitely if certain conditions are met (Constant air density being higher than that of the LTA or Constant airflow over lifting surface of the LB). A bullet, which flies on inertia, cannot maintain its inertia indefinitely; this is physics. Gravity and Drag will eventually stop Inertial Flight. Let's pull this to a compromise design: The Variable Geometry Wing. It is a lift-based flight design that uses large wings for high-drag, low-speed flight. At high speeds, the drag on the wings causes performance to suffer. Thus, the wings move into a position where their drag profile is smaller, and can operate at high speeds efficiently. However, low-speed performance in this configuration suffers. So, the compromise is a good one, since it can perform both low-speed and high-speed roles. Notice how Variable Fighters, for the most part, have this in one way, shape or form.

Looking pretty good. The body seems a bit too rounded, still. There's a definite angle on the fuselage. It's too smooth, once more. That's, again, my only critique. It's pretty good, otherwise.

And we can see that even mods double post. Please, excuse me if all of the policemen I've ever seen in my life around this state of mine used Glock 17s or 19s, and that I've only ever seen .45 caliber pistols in the hands of the military men I've met. I assumed that several hundred of a few thousand would reflect upon the rest, at least in this state. I've forgotten that in the intervening years of the last two wars and now, the .45 has been replaced with the 9mm. I don't speak to armed servicemen from this war, only those who veteranned in others.

It fascinates because you're an engineering student laughing at how wrong I was in that last statement?

And the Monster, itself, is a reference to the RX-75 Guntank.

True, to an extent, and you don't need large lifting surfaces if you have thrust. Best example I can think of are the X-1 through X-15, all of which had small wings,

ABS yellows. It's a fact of life. Even Legos do. If they do, just do some yellow-removal treatment. Hell, you can prevent it by taking the object apart, anti-uv treating it, and reassembling. If my sig is true in this case, disregard this whole post.

Sig has reverted. Listen to it, from now on. Anyone can tell you I'm full of crap.

Hot Rod, you lead the Autobots.

You're one of few I think can pull this off. Good luck and Godspeed.

"And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll release my inventions to everyone. Then, everyone can be a super." -Shoji Kawamori

I mean, if something jams during transformation, it comes down to whether the ECA and Space Metal frame are stronger or if it's the actuators. If the latter is stronger, the plane gets ripped up. If the former is, it could stick, mid-transformation. In the VF-1, if it sticks in any stage besides the body fold, it's possible to recover. If the VF-25 does, it could maybe be recovered during a jam of legs, wings, or arms. The fuselage hinges too many times. In either case, a fuselage jam would spell disaster. It's the reason the F-14 didn't have hardpoints on the wings. The F-111's sometimes jammed, rendering the weapons useless, sometimes damaging the F-111. Besides, there is also the weight issue.

SV-51s launch vertically. They were designed that way. From there, they have enough thrust to fly on smaller wings. Beyond that, they have VTOL fans and TVC paddles. Also, it probably employs body lift. VF-1 wings aren't small. In fact, I daresay they're as big as an F-14's wings, even though the VF-1 is 4 meters shorter. Also, again, bodylift. It comes with the pancake design.

Yeah, it was a joke. Whenever I bring up photoshop with an exclamation, for future reference, it's always a joke.

That's a real stretch. If anything from Halo, I'd probably say Phantom and Recon Boat whose name I can't spell And even that's a stretch.

True. I always assume the Reaction Engines produce a lot of heat. This is mostly based on the color of reaction explosions and Thermonuke Reaction Turbines. However, it's never explained. I like to infer.

What photoshoppery is this!

Manbearpig?! WHERE?! While 9mm is standard police issue, .45 is standard military issue. I'm preparing for a Class-4, remember.

If my summer job works out, I'll have some awesome to show off. 4-6 instances of awesome...

Even in Akt_M's animation, you see parts going through each other. While I guess you could chalk that up to a modelling error, it shows how little the margin for error is in it. Moving from there, it has more hinges. Fewer moving parts, but more hinges. Those hinges can jam, and then, it's just a matter of which is stronger: ECA or the "Linear Actuators"

The wings do deflect, probably, but so slightly, it's comparable to a combatting F-14. SWAG ECA is one of the reasons for this. The other major reason is weight. They don't weigh much, so they don't produce as much weight on themselves in high-g situations, like them being swung out quickly during transformation. Also, the ECA strengthens the light aircraft skin to the strength or tank armor, roughly, if Macross Zero is anything to go by. Now, I'll say a few things about Gundams. Strike can fly without the Aile. You know this. Also, the Aile's wings are too damned small to provide enough lift to carry it. The Strike's official weight is 64.8 Metric Tons, roughly 3 times that of the VF-1, despite the fact that it's only 5.4 meters taller, and not much wider. Aile's wings are smaller than a VF-1's. Thus, all of its "lift" must actually be thrust from the two large thrusters on the bottom of the pack. Further, the machine is not very aerodynamic. It's full of sharp curves, and FOR GOD'S SAKE, IT'S HUMANOID! Humans are not meant to fly. Our bodies are not streamlined well. A boxy human is only going to fly worse. Gundam=SEVERE anime magic Macross=Some anime magic