[Suggestion] Scythe should be 25% smaller

It is just an image found online that is at least 8 years old, so unfortunately it does not include the Dervish nor further explanation of the numbers. But looking at the top-down view the number under "area" corresponds to what is obtained by multiplying together the length numbers on the side. So it is for all intents and purposes the actual area of a bounding rectangle of the esf. The "coverage" number, being less, I assume and can find no other plausible explanation of it being anything else than the actual hitbox size.

No defense? Just "check"? I mean at least tell us how you used a scythe that is somehow bigger than the one in the in-game screenshot.

so what are you saying?
that the tilted wings aren't included in the hitbox? because they absolutely are.
that the hitbox is smaller than with wings? because it isn't. (down to the very inch)
that we just shouldn't count them for some reason? why not? if you're shooting at the front the chance are the wings will be in that position.

this just seems like you're asking to make the smallest ESF even smaller.
if an argument should be made for an ESF to shrink then it should absolutely be Reaver,
Reaver is much larger than the other two, this used to be balanced by Reaver also having a much higher damage nosegun,
but then TR and VS received similar noseguns, so now Reaver has its large size disadvantage without its large damage advantage.

also to answer you question to someone else "what is the number down the bottom"
it is pixel count, but those old pictures have an error, the landing gear is down,
they also fail to account for the huge mass of wings and engines that tilt in dogfights.
(because generally when we are comparing ESFs we are talking about dogfights.)

Someone please add the Dervish and make it a bit Orange.

Is there any tank comparison photo guide for the Front, Side, Top like these photos for the aircraft?

Oh my goodness! TANKS! YES!!!

It -almost- looks like the one method I was going to attempt, which is mono-colorizing the entire model from different perspectives and then using a pixel count to get the value. This would be the most accurate, but the model can't have any black / shading, otherwise the pixel count comes up inaccurate and inconsistent since the art program has a tolerance and different models cast different degrees of shadows. That's why I went with the manual tracing, then "best reasonable" shape/ gap inclusion.

I wish we knew because I'd rather the mono-colorized method than tracing these puppies in the architectural engineering program to get the area.

If someone can get clean mono colored images with a flat background, I can do a pixel count that way w/ ****. I used blender for the models, but apparently people think the models I used were not scaled correctly even though they were imported.

Of you can, post them here and do not repost the 2017 images. I'll flatten, then do a color pixel count with the hysterogram function, and then the raw pixel count should be a relative best indicator of hit box from the 4 view angles. Keep views equidistant, and if viewing together remove the horizon/ perspective rendering.
[FRONT] [TOP] [SIDE] [ISOMETRIC]