Talk:TIE/LN starfighter

Same thing as my comments about the TIE bomber. Where did you get your max atmospheric speed and acceleration numbers from? JimRaynor55 04:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The panels are radiators
The panels radiate the heat generated by the reactor.

—

— Ŭalabio 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-

Quote
I'd like to use a bit from I, Jedi as the leading quote on this article, but I don't know if it can be considered "in-universe." It's not dialogue, but since I, Jedi is supposed to be written in first person, I think it can be argued that the entire text of the book is quotable as the words of Corran Horn. And I'd really like to put this at the top:

"Sienar Systems' basic TIE fighter–a commodity which, after hydrogen and stupidity, was the most plentiful in the galaxy."

- Corran Horn

Can we do that? &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  21:35, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I'll add it. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:38, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Schematic Anatomy"
Where does this "schematic anatomy" (can "anatomy" even be applied to ships?) come from? JimRaynor55 22:58, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Wars: X-wing. The original DOS version, I think. Incidentally, I had forgotten that X-Wing labeled the "solar panels" as "supplemental laser power." Meaning that even if they're solar panels and not radiators, they're not the primary power source. &lt;Nelson Muntz&gt;HA-ha!&lt;/Nelson Muntz&gt; &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  23:28, 10 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually for removing them altogether. Animations really don't belong on articles. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:30, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * A Picture says more than hundred words, an animated picture is even better. I see no sense in removing it, as it contains informations. If it would be only to let the article look better I would also want to remove it, but its not the case. --Dark Scipio 10:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode II Appearance.
Source/image would be nice. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

When did the TIE Fighter enter service?
Is the TIE Fighter a 1 or 0 B.B.Y. starfighter or older?
 * It's older than that, definitely. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But how much? I thought I read something about it coming out "within weeks of the New Order". Maybe it was the Databank... *looks* Guess not. Oh well. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's said, but I'm positive it's older than 1 BBY. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In 14 or 15 BBY, the Star Destroyer Strikefast had a complement of TIEs when it discovered Thrawn in the Unknown Regions. VT-16 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thrawn was discovered "weeks" after the New Order was announced. Those have been retconned as T.I.E Fighters, not TIE Fighters anyway. Aeods

ejection seat
"Contrary to popular belief, the ships did possess ejection seats, but the nature of space warfare often resulted in pilots riding their craft down to a swift end rather than ejecting and risking slow death by heat loss and oxygen starvation." I don't think this is true. Empire: Darklighter shows Biggs and fellow rebels ejecting from their TIE's on purpose. Granted, not a likely occurrence but it is proof it exists. Also, it makes total sense that they could do that. They aren't long range vehicles so another ship could easily pick them up or they could use a blaster to continue the fight while adrift. Unless someone has a direct source that states they do not have ejector seats that comment needs to be removed. --DannyBoy7783 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that came from a good source, but I'm not positive. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 17:54, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
 * Well, it better be damn good. The comic clearly shows an ejection seat. The editor's note the helmets aren't canon but they never say anything else isn't. --DannyBoy7783 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my god. I am such a tard. I read "did possess" as "didn't possess". Please disregard this entire section... --DannyBoy7783 19:39, 6 April 2006 (PDT)
 * No problem. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 13:45, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Name
Shouldn't this be at TIE/ln starfighter? That trend has been started with some of the other TIE models, and since "TIE fighter" is more of a nickname than anything else, it shouldn't be designated as such - Kwenn 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, we should also move the others to their proper designations. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The main problem I see on this one is that the TIE Fighter and the TIE/ln Fighter are two separate but nearly identical varieties of the baseline TIE ("/ln" has a blueish hull like the later TIEs, no "/ln" has a grey hull). It's difficult to know which of the two any given nonspecific "TIE Fighter" reference is intended to be, so the current page title is probably the most appropriate. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What source says that the TIE/ln has a blueish hull, but that the previous models didn't? Saxton claims this in the SWTC, but I don't know where he got that from. JimRaynor55 01:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, I'm not sure. The Star Wars Sourcebook is the earliest source I can find, and it doesn't differentiate between the hull colors (it seems to imply that the ANH fighters are the same as the ESB ones). And Solo Command did mention "several improvements in Sienar TIE fighter hulls." Maybe they are all TIE/ln's. Saxton's excessive interpretation of facts and lack of attribution are really getting on my nerves lately. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hull color made one a "/ln" and the other one not. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I thought that there was the T.I.E. and that was what Sienar had the engines for in that HNN report, but by ANH at the latest, everything was the TIE/In.-- The Erl of the  talk  What I do 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, should this be at TIE/ln fighter or not? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This comes from the fact that in the first film, the models used couldn't be blue because of the bluescreen effect. In subsequent films, they added more and more blue coloring to the models in post-production. The other difference I can remember, is that the white TIE fighters had no windows on top of the cockpit, which the grey/blue TIE/ln had. VT-16 19:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that the fighters in both ANH and TESB both had windows on top of the cockpits. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Since no official source differentiates the colors, both are the same model. So, again, should this be moved to TIE/ln starfighter? - Kwenn 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we use TIE/ln fighter instead? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? The correct name is TIE/ln starfighter. "Fighter" is just an abbreviated form of "starfighter", just like "astro-droid" is a colloquism of "astromech droid" - Kwenn 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just that we're going to move a lot of articles (such as TIE Interceptor to TIE/I fighter or starfighter), and we already have TIE/gt fighter and so on. I thought it would just save us some time. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of moving them is so that we have them at the correct name - Kwenn 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, then. If you need any help moving articles, let me know. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Started - Kwenn 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do the TIE/I starfighter. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What could ln stand for? Didn't some of their names resemble or stand for something, like /I for interceptor? -Aiddat 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "ln" stands for "line", hence "TIE line starfighter". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to cause trouble or anything but for the craft name "ln" standing for "line" and all, shouldn't the "L" be capitalised to prevent confusion between the Fighter and Interceptor? The Capital "I" looks the same as the small "L" on the TIE Craft list page. (Heck I thought that the Tie Fighter's designation was the TIE/in for years because of that.)Defender_16
 * Confusion or no confusion, we can't change a starfighter's designation. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this nonsense? I thought the pattern was either /Ln and /In or /ln and /in? With the current name you can't tell them apart. VT-16 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but sources call the TIE Fighter "TIE/ln" and the Interceptor "TIE/In". If I ever publish a novel, I'll make sure to use "TIE/in" for the Interceptor. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 11:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this is fairly old, but I've found a number of sources that give the TIE Fighter the /Ln designation... what's the deal? Jorrel Fraajic 17:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it comes down to which one appears in the latest source. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Luke's quote

 * Doesn't Luke say "They're coming in too fast", not "They're too fast" during the Falcon's escape from the Death Star? - Finlayson 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just popped the DVD into my computer to check, and he does indeed say "they're coming in too fast." But this page doesn't need another quote anyway. Darth Culator 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea. I wasn't suggesting adding it.. - Finlayson 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kwenn and I told the user it wasn't an actual quote, but he didn't listen... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Hatch
I'm just wondering. I know TIEs have no life support systems, and I seen the toy TIE Advance x 1. So I have 1 question. Just as there's glass in the front view window of the TIE Fighter, is there any glass on the top veiw windows of the hatch, or is it completly open to the open space? Double D 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's open to space. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so. . . If a TIE Fighter was on a planet (Lets say Coruscant) and the pilot chooses to leave the atmosphere, the air won't get vacuum-sucked out of the lined-gaps in the top hatch? (I'm asking just to be 100% sure) Double D 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think those lines in the hatch are open to space. Plus, if the pilot was in his uniform and in Coruscant's atmosphere, he could easily enter space. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So how came the TIE suits are fully sealed with self-atmospere converters? Rebel pilots don't wear all the when fling an X-Wings. Double D 14:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because X-wings have life-support systems while TIEs don't. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I'm just thinking, if the view windows has a glass covering in the gaps of the top hatch, why do the suits need to be fully sealed? Why not partially sealed? Y can't they take off the helmets just for a min to prevent helmet hair? Double D 14:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there's no life-support system onboard TIEs. In the first few minutes after takeoff, they'll still be a little bit of atmosphere, but that would eventually drain out, leaving no air. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the TIEs have no CO2-O2 fitter? Double D 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would basically be a life-support system, so you are correct. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 14:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

H-shape your basic villain's starfighter design
I can't help noting that most of the major OpFor ships in the movies are an H-shape (when viewed from front). Ex: Ties, Droid Starfighters/Vultures, Darth Maul's infiltrator, Darth Vaders' Eta-2. Most of the other Ties in the movies share the H-configuration. (0-0)Bomber, <-o-> interceptor, |-o-| Tie, {-o-} Eta-2 (it's technically a villain's ship, as Vader pilots it to Mustafar. Should this be added as a trivia fact? 82 Airborne 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But I don't know if we should add it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 21:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

the TIE/In is a different starfighter. It stands for TIE/Interceptor. The standard TIE Fighter is called Sienar Fleet Systems TIE/In Space Superiority starfighter. The TIE/In's in part is Interceptor. However the TIE/In is NOT the TIE Interceptor, rather a prototype of it. It is more maneuverable than your standard TIE Fighter, and I have sources to back this up. Sources: The New Essential Guide To Vehicles and vessels contradicts the idea of TIE/In being in space superiority in that it does not say plain /In, rather it says for the TIE Fighter /In Space Superiority And Star Wars Galaxies openly states the TIE/In as being a different fighter.

Also, the idea of the lasers being powerful is absurd. the new essential guide to vehicles and vessels openly states that the cannons are weak.
 * We have the TIE/ln (lowercase "L") and the TIE/In starfighter (uppercase "i"). They are the two different models - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you understood it, because I was confused. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 02:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Advanced tie
I think this article showed mention how the ties laser were sometimes modiefed to penetrae the hull on a star destroyer my source is when luke skywalker destroyed the teezel. Also i believe in the xwing books it states that ties do not have ejector seats. Darth Kaisr 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) So far, those modified lasers have only appeared once. 2) The TIEs did indeed have ejector seats. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TIE individuality
This page says that there are no attachments to certain TIEs by tie pilots. But it also links to "Black 2" and says that Vader's wingman had 27 flames painted on his cockpit for his 27 kills before the Battle at Yavin. GOOD choice of links, guys!
 * Hey, you know, I never realized that. But, the fact that there are kill paintings on a TIE doesn't mean that the pilot is attached; if he lost that ship, his kills would merely be transfered to a new TIE. Jorrel Fraajic 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Name
the TIE/In is a seperate starfighter from the TIE Fighter. The TIE Fighter is a more powerful version of the TIE/ln. Source: Star Wars Galaxies.
 * Anon has a point. The TIE Fighter and the TIE Interceptor are both labeled as "TIE/In Starfighter". Which is correct? Maclimes Zero''' (talk) [[Image:Infinite_Empire.png|10px]] 21:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Waitaminute... So TIE/In_starfighter is not the same article as TIE/ln_starfighter?? One is a lower-case "L", and the other is an upper-case "I"? *snorts milk out his nose* Good thing this isn't confusing at all. Maclimes Zero''' (talk) [[Image:Infinite_Empire.png|10px]] 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon: "TIE/ln" and "TIE Fighter" are the same. Zero: "TIE/ln" = TIE Fighter, "TIE/In" = TIE Interceptor. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we come to some sort of improvisation? The whole Fighter and Interceptor having the same abbreviation thing makes reading incredibly confusing, as you can't tell which is which. 74.37.147.109 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, they're not the same abbreviations. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be good if people could decide whether to use upper- or lower-case abbreviations now. So it should either be TIE/ln and TIE/in or TIE/Ln and TIE/In. Not only would this stop people from getting confused all the time, it also makes no sense to make the one abbreviation an using-upper case letter and the other doesn't. And yes: the TIE/ln is the successor of the first standard TIE Fighter, which is the successor from the T.I.E. - currently, the article is contradicting itself on this matter (at one point saying it's the same and at another point differing between the two), and this should be fixed. By the way, the TIE/ln being the improved TIE is stated in older sources than SWG, too, I just can't remember exactly where - was it the Stele Chronicles? Tulon 16:00 12 April 2007

First identified
Okay, I'm gonna take a whack at this and say it was first identified in ROTJ when Lando tells everyone to split up. Anyone got anything different in mind? 216.224.121.143 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we usually don't used the "1stID" tag unless it was identified after it's first appearance. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 14:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first appearance was in ANH, and unless it was identified in some other material sometime in there then it would've gone for two movies without a name Lalala la 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

TIE starfighter vs. TIE/ln starfighter
Noticed this old list from Star Wars Sourcebook, showing different models based on the original TIE design: Now the interesting thing is, the TIE/ln fighter has a seperate power generator for the guns, but the first Imperial TIE doesn't. The cross-section picture of the TIE fighter from SW:ICS does not appear to show any secondary reactor, so could this version seen in ANH be the TIE, while the one in ESB and ROTJ is the "Line" fighter? VT-16 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that has been implied in the past, but I've never seen it directly stated. jSarek 10:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll need a little bit more evidence before changing anything. I've always thought that the standard TIEs in the original trilogy were TIE/ln's, but this does seem to say that I'm wrong on the matter. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that woud make a little more sense, because of the color change. Still too early and not enough evidence, but it is a definate possiblity. 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember writing an article years ago, when Wookieepedia was first starting up, pointing out the two different models, but then I forgot where I'd read about them. I've seen Saxton Tech. Comm. site that the Line fighter had greater speed or could travel longer. Is there any official source that give different specs for the TIE and the TIE/ln? Saxton claimed there was different specs like the above, and that these were only associated with the Line fighter. VT-16 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Years ago", VT? I thought Wookieepedia didn't even have its second birthday yet. ;) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2005 is two years ago. ;P VT-16 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wookieepedia's birthday is March 4, VT. A little less than a month to go before this Wookiee turns two. ;) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are different specs listed in "Alliance Intelligence Report: TIE Fighters" in Star Wars Adventure Journal 10. The TIE(no suffix) Starfighter was slower (RPG space of 8 instead of 10) and had weaker lasers (3D instead of 5D) than the TIE/ln. jSarek 13:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's split this article then. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say something about this. I'm not sure if anyone here plays Star Wars Galaxies, which has been stated as canon, except for Player Characters, but there are multiple models for a TIE Fighter that look the same. The TIE Light Duty, TIE Fighter, and TIE/ln are the ones I can remember right now. I've read that they are all different, but only slightly so. The TIE Fighter and the Light Duty variant are identical in appearance, but the Light Duty is obviously equipped lightly. The TIE/ln is a bit more blueish, and has some slight changes from the original TIE Fighter. At least, this is what Galaxies says. I'm not sure if it is true. Adenn 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to be true. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

CIS conection?
Has any one else noticed that the TIE fighters panels look exactly like the CIS symbol also dose any one know if there’s a connection between them?Katana01 or Katana 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's in the article. As for an IU connection, I don't think there is one. OOU, there probably is. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)