if someone were to construct LAMs
per
http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=blog&blog=BattleBlog
BattleBlog - To LAM or Not To LAM
29 September 2009
"So, that only leaves item 2 to figure out...but...well...have to leave something for you guys to guess about, right?"

2. The art of what a LAM fighter looks like was completely different than all the other aerospace fighters within the game. Now one could make the argument (and it has been made) that 'Mechs run a huge gamut of look and style and so do aerospace fighters, so why not just consider the LAMs at the extremes. But the thinking is that they ran just too extreme. Even the most 'airplane' looking of the aerospace fighters (say the Corsair) were different 'enough', as opposed to the LAM aerospace fighters which looked like our modern day F-14s/F-15s.

one thing that occurred to me was the urbie, aside from the AC arm is pretty aerodynamically shaped, well as much as any round nosed bullet anyway.
course I don't know how you'd mount wings/lift surfaces, assuming you're not making a flying brick.
ooh! rotary wing! sunhats for your urbies!

I find this rather amusing because I think the general aerospace art looks too "extreme" (and bad) for the most part. The original 3025 Aerospace fighters weren't terrible, but I'm not sure how several of them would even be able to generate lift in the atmosphere. 2750 was... not good, and the spindly stick-fighters of 3055 are horrendous.

To play along, however, I will ask a counter-question. How can you make a "walking tank" that is a Battlemech able to transform into something that needs to be aerodynamic like an Aerospace fighter? Consider that the only NEED for aerodynamics is for atmospheric flight, otherwise Aerospace fighter aerodynamics are totally unnecessary.

And one last thing:
"Even the most 'airplane' looking of the aerospace fighters (say the Corsair) were different 'enough', as opposed to the LAM aerospace fighters which looked like our modern day F-14s/F-15s."

This statement in the blog is useless. The only LAMs in canon Battletech were from artwork borrowed from Macross. That is the only reason the LAMs looked like F-14s, because the Stinger, Wasp, and Phoenix Hawk are all borrowed from VF-1 Valkyries. You might say the entire LAM concept was borrowed from Macross anyways, where you have less "walking tank" and more "mecha gymnast" style.

So now we're left with trying to shoehorn the LAM concept into Battletech's style. Is it really a worthwhile idea? I mean, I like LAMs as much as the next guy (except of course having to fight something with a 15 hex jump radius that doesn't generate any excess heat for it).

Thankfully, Perrin already answered the question for us. That, of course, being the UberUrbie Quad LAM: http://www.tro42.com/pub/uberurbie.html

-Shrike
Resident Urbie expert
PUB Recruitment/Administration

hmm, this is still the last entry.
ah well.

to explain my sun hat reference.

http://www.islandone.org/Launch/Roton-Paper/

using that one for the graphic, looks less goofy than the 100% scale.
rotary rocket should also work for search terms. roton pulls up a bunch of boca roton links.

consider for a moment if you mounted the jump jets at the end of the rotary wings attached at the ring mount of the head?/torso, a smidge dangerous and prone to damage from hostile weapons fire or drunken pilots, or for the sun hat look attach at the top of the dome.

that'd take care of the vertical lift. but how would you do lateral? applying the same concept as a tilt rotor just angle the body...uh with more jump jets? might need some drag elements and a stablizer to keep the thing flying though.

It'd be worth it just for the hilarity when the stabilizer fails and the poor pilot corkscrews. plus applied with urbie launcher you get extended range rocket assisted muni...er rapid deployment squads.