Talk:TIE/sa bomber/Legends

Where does the max acceleration of 2380 G come from? That sounds like something from Curtis Saxton's ICS books, but those were prequel era and did not cover the TIEs. The max atmospheric speed of 850 km/h is ridiculously slow (less than Mach 1, and more than an order of magnitude slower than the atmospheric speeds of other starfighters shown in the ICS books), but sounds like something WEG would have came up with. Can you name your sources? I really doubt the authenticity of this information. JimRaynor55 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the response. The info should stay up because it's official, but I must say that I'm disappointed in whoever wrote the NEGVV. The acceleration is great, and compares well to the numbers Saxton came up with. However, the atmospheric speed is still stuck in the Dark Ages of WEG. It just doesn't make sense. JimRaynor55 04:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The info comes from The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.  It may not be the highest form of cannon, but it does supercede pure speculation. Shadowtrooper 02:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'd have to rationalize that, lacking shields, and being a rather unaerodynamic shape, the TIE craft must restrict themselves to ungodly slow speeds.--Eion 07:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A problem with that idea though, is that TIE fighters were able to keep up with the Millennium Falcon without any trouble in the atmosphere of Bespin. -Vermilion 07:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the MF was at a standstill, picking up Luke. I was going to make an argument about the MF's slow acceleration or unknown top speed, but we already have those from ANH, sigh. Yeah, it's a crap number.--Eion 07:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're all forgetting that the Falcon outflew a TIE Interceptor while the second Death Star was preparing to explode. That proves that both the Falcon as well as TIEs have decent, if not excellent speed capabilities.
 * They're talking about atmospheric flight, not space flight. They're totally different matters; there's no friction in space. – Aidje talk 22:05, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this is almost one year old, but I just had to add: for the fire to spread throughout the tunnel and indeed follow those fighters out, there would have to be some kind of atmosphere being kept inside the superstructure (similar pockets are kept for the workers at KDY according to Slave Ship, so they don't have to wear spacesuits all the time.) We wouldn't be seeing those flames unless there was a rich source of air in there. VT-16 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dupes
I'm just gonna assume it's the shape for now, since that's teh case with the others, but does anyone know for sure why they're called "dupes"? If it is a shape thing, I don't get it. CooperTFN 05:56, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Capitalize?
Should we move this to "TIE Bomber"? Both the capitalized and uncapitalized versions are correct, but I think the TIE articles should be given titles with a consistent style. JimRaynor55 06:33, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * It really isn't neccisary. It's the TIE bomber, with or without the "B" capitalized. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Although it's not critical, I think it should be moved for consistency's sake. Either way is okay, but we should use the same style for every TIE. JimRaynor55 22:58, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:45, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

New picture, please
May someone find a picture of the model used in Empire Strikes Back as the official picture of the TIE Bomber on this page, (its common on the internet)? I think it is best to have an authentic picture of the model rather than a computer-generated picture. I have tried to upload the picture, but I am not sure how to get uploaded pictures into the page.
 * There is nothing wrong with this picture. It shows an accurate model of the craft. This image is completely fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks ok, but the other TIE files in Wookiepedia all have pictures from the movies in them, and the picture I an recommending is common, looks better, and represents the art of Lucasfilm model makers who deserve credit, look at the Star Wars: Databank "TIE Bomber" section to see for yourself.
 * So? This picture shows a very good image of a TIE Bomber. There is no need to replace it at all. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An image from the movie can be added into the article, yes, but the main image is perfectly fine. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet you screw up the article... Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was only seeing if it looked o.k., I did not "screw up" the article. Trekkies screw up Star Wars articles with Kirk vs. Picard bull shit, I was comparing the revised article to the other ones and was wondering if anyone else could have the chance to voice their opinion on the new image on the discussion page.  I have placed the new image lower down on the page. Peace Admiral Nebulax!
 * "I was only seeing if it looked o.k.". That's what the "Show preview" button is for. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I commend you on your image choices on the other TIE sections. I do not wish to argue with you, your image is fine, and I accept your final decision but hope you leave a canon image on the page. You're right, I was being hasty, we should have a more democratic decision on this and other issues by consulting others on our decisions. In order to avoid other problems, I will post my potential images on the discussion page where you and others can review them before I post. Peace.
 * "but hope you leave a canon image on the page". That's what the first picture is. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Peace, buddy! Most of my canon information comes from the films. I didn't know where that computer-generated image came from, if it is canon, then its fine. Off-topic, I was talking with SillyDan over putting some banner over the X-Wing game article to warn of its misrepresentation of the Battle of Yavin and end non-canon information which states there was a battle with a frigate near the Death Star. What do you think of stopping X-Wing's misrepresentation of Star Wars canon on this site?
 * Well, most games do go against canon. The storyline is indeed canon, but the gameplay mainly goes against it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

TIE/sa? Here we go again...
"TIE/sa" seems to be yet another fanon name (maybe from the non-canon SWG wiki). Can somebody provide a quote from a canon source?

- NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * Why do you think every name of a starfighter or ship is fanon? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think people should provide *canon* sources for their claims, rather than blindly copying fan sites like SWG wiki, Galactic Voyages etc. Or worse, inventing their own class names and designations. Don't you agree?       Anyway, I've never heard the name  "TIE/sa" before, so I checked my books, comics, and games. Unless it is mentioned in small print in some CCG card, I would say "TIE/sa" is fanon. Can you prove me wrong?  - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * TIE/sa is not fanon, because I know I've seen it in a canon source. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did you see it? -NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * I honestly do not remember, but I do remember thinking to myself "What does the 'sa' part stand for?" after I saw it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Star Wars Customizable Card Game, Dagobah expansion: . -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a card, I just wasn't sure. Thanks, Culator. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I stand corrected. Indeed it was in small print in some CCG card! Anyway Nebulax, now we know "sa" means "surface assault". -NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * At least my confusion helped out a bit. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that we are at it, there is also any source for the name "TIE/I" for the TIE Interceptor? It's not in the usual books nor the game manuals. I've already checked most cards in the wizards and decipher sites and found nothing. -NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * Again, I know it's sourced. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I posted the question in the Interceptor page. That said, don't you think that it should be better to call this article "TIE/sa bomber" (specific function and how this craft is called by everybody) rather than the generic "TIE/sa starfighter"? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * No, because they're all TIE series starfighters. This is the TIE/sa starfighter, which stands for "TIE surface assault starfighter".Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the TIE Shuttle a starfighter too? Come on, the TIE/sa is called always a "bomber" in 100% of official sources - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * The TIE/sh shuttle is not a starfighter. And FYI, the TIE/gt starfighter, which is a bomber, is not called the "TIE/gt bomber" in the Databank, so this is the "TIE/sa starfighter". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is from the WEG SW Sourcebook: [[Image:SWSB_TIEFighter_models.jpg|right]]These are the TIE "Fighter" variations based in the same basic original hull. The TIE interceptor, bomber, shuttle etc, were given proper fleet function designations used in-universe for more specialized TIE series models by the empire and in real life at the same time. Databank says "TIE bomber" too. - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * Your point? This is still the TIE/sa starfighter. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see what you're trying to say. Okay, upon reading that, I'm fine with moving it to TIE/sa bomber. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nebulax - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
 * You're welcome. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see they reference the TIE fighter as being different from the TIE/ln. I never did understand why this was removed from the TIE fighter article, and replaced with mentions of TIE/ln only. From what I remember, the TIE/ln are only the greyish/blue fighters seen in ESB and ROTJ, with the white ones in ANH being TIEs without the "ln" designation. (They were said to be old and nearly outdated by 0 BBY.) Can't remember the source or sources for this, but it said something about Tarkin still having them because he was in the Outer Rim and therefore wasn't always given the best equipment. It's the same explanation used for why the TIE models were slightly different in the later two movies, same as with the ISD-I and II models. VT-16 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the original TIE starfighter (not T.I.E.) was different from the TIE/ln starfighter? Interesting. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it was the T.I.E. starfighter prototype, then the older TIE starfighter (which seems to be an upgraded version of the T.I.E., from that little box above), and then the standard TIE/ln starfighter. I suppose we'll need a TIE starfighter article for the original upgraded T.I.E. prototype. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how everyone agreed several months ago that it would be okay to move this to "TIE/sa bomber," should we move this article already? Technically, in the most general use of the term, a "starfighter" is pretty much any small combat spacecraft.  But the TIE/sa is as pure a bomber as they come in SW. JimRaynor55 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still a TIE starfighter, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On August 21 (just look above), didn't you agree that moving this to "TIE/sa bomber" would be OK? There's not a single source that actually calls it "TIE/sa starfighter."  As I said, it's a "starfighter" only in the most general, un-technical use of the term.  Calling it a starfighter gives the impression that it is capable at anti-starfighter combat, which it is not.  I can't think of any source that actually writes out "Eta-2 Actis-class light interceptor" (rather than just "Eta-2 Actis" or something simpler like that), yet we use that title because that's the most specific. JimRaynor55 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion can change, Jim, and it did. And Jaymach, care to explain why you reverted my edits without giving a reason? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning was flawed...we've seen canon evidence of the TIE starfighter with a lower case "s", but the TIE Bomber is always spelled in uppercase...see also TIE Advanced, and TIE Defender for another two that are uppercase...if you can find more examples of it being lowercase than those of it being uppercase then I'd be fine with it being lowercase...until then, it should be uppercase. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen it as "TIE bomber" in just about every source&mdash;unless you want me to find sources that say "TIE/sa bomber" instead. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me a source that says TIE bomber instead of TIE Bomber...it's already been agreed that /sa is part of the designation, now you're simply squabling over semantics in relation to the capitalization. When you find me more sources that say bomber instead of Bomber, I'll let it be at TIE/sa bomber. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Without even spending that much time finding more sources, I can tell you that The Imperial Sourcebook, the starwars.com Databank, The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, and the WOTC website write "TIE bomber" with a lower-case "b." JimRaynor55 02:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Starships of the Galaxy, The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, TIE Fighter: The Official Strategy Guide, The Official Star Wars Fact File, and the Star Wars Sourcebook are some that I can find quickly which all say TIE Bomber. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a stupid game of counting sources. As I said before, I didn't even take that much time to find more.  Anyway, either the upper and lower-cases have been used, but the point is that the lower-case usage is consistent with Wookieepedia's article naming conventions. JimRaynor55 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Jim, you agree with my move of the article to "TIE/sa bomber"? Anyway, it's clear that sources say "TIE bomber" and "TIE Bomber"; now it comes down to policy. Policy says this article should be TIE/sa bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny...I've never heard of such a policy. Kindly point me towards it, as it will mean we have to move TIE Defender, TIE Advanced, TIE Hunter, and several others. Unless you can point me towards the policy however, then it will come down to counting sources, just as the argument of capitalization of Human did; note that it turned out we would capitalize it. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you Nebulax, this should be "TIE/sa bomber." Jaymach, the "policy" that you're looking for isn't that hard to see.  Just LOOK at other starfighter article names.  Do you see "X-wing Starfighter" or "A-wing Interceptor?"  No, because we don't capitalize the ship's type.  As for those other TIEs, they're a bit different since those are proper names, not roles.  Either way, I have seen "defender" with a lower-case "d." JimRaynor55 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As have I, but "Defender" is a proper name, whereas "bomber" isn't for this TIE. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying this "policy" is what you've noticed when looking at other articles then? So it's not a policy? Oh wait...I'm sorry...looking at other article bar the ones that don't fit it. We don't have a policy, and in cases like this it comes down to what's used more in canon. I'm more than happy to look through every single source I have to see how many say Bomber. If you're not willing to do the same, then kindly bring it to vote. Bomber is as much a proper name as Defender is, however. A Bomber bombs, a Defender defends...a Hunter hunts...we don't have any consistency even on this site. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except "Defender" and "Hunter" were not meant to be roles like "bomber" is. And in case you haven't noticed, Jaymach, Jim already provided sources for "TIE bomber". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Defender and Hunter are very much roles...the Hunter is designed specifically for hunting other fighters...it's a fast, maneuverable ship...the Defender can quite easily defend assets, as it's heavily armed and armored. And yes, he provided some sources...I provided sources for TIE Bomber...like I said...it comes down to counting the sources, to see which is used more, unless we want to hold a vote. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaymach, the TIE Defenders and TIE Hunters are starfighters. The TIE/sa is a bomber. Therefore, "Defender" and "Hunter" would be capitalized, while "bomber" wouldn't be. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, we had this article at TIE/sa starfighter just a day ago...the TIE Bomber is a starfighter as well, which is used to bomb. The Bomber being capitalized is exactly the same as Hunter and Defender being capitalized. Like I said, either provide more sources one way than the other or hold a vote. It's also interesting to note that Jim was wanting this moved to TIE Bomber earlier on this page. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, "bomber" being capitalized is not the same as Defender and Hunter being capitalized because "defender" and "hunter" are not those starfighters' main roles. The TIE/sa's main role is a bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the TIE Hunter doesn't hunt down enemies? The TIE Defender doesn't defend the Empire? I think someone ought to look at their operational service. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not. What they do is not always what their role is. They are starfighters. Their classes aren't "defender" and "hunter". The TIE/sa is a bomber. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said...hold a vote, or count sources...until then, it stays here. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you start counting sources for your side? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have...so far I'm up to 34...I'm simply waiting for someone else to start counting the other side. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we might have to hold a vote anyway. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the sources I have access to, all use "TIE bomber": EGVV, NEGVV}], [[The Galactic Empire: Ships of the Fleet and the Databank: TIE bomber - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 22:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange how my copy of the NEGtV&V says that it's TIE Bomber then...additionally, I've provided many other sources which say TIE Bomber...if someone wants to tally up the amount of sources that say TIE bomber, then I'm more than happy to continue my count of TIE Bomber's...else, put it to a vote. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this: Let's wait to see what Complete Cross-Sections says. For the time being, we can leave the article here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: NEGVV, yeah, the title is in uppercase, but every title in the book is formatted in that way. The text itself uses lowercase - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 11:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's right. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to restart old topics, I just remembered about this. Complete Cross-Sections says "TIE bomber", not "TIE Bomber". Therefore, I'm moving the article to "TIE/sa bomber". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Laser Cannons
So. . .Where are the laser cannons located on TIE Bombers? They seem to be well hidden. Double D 17:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll say. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to a FMV scene in Dark Forces II, there's two guns below the cockpit, like on most other TIEs. They're small though. VT-16 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently very small. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a small model of a TIE/sa starfighter, given to me as a gift. After reading this article I examined the model closely and found that just under the pilot's cockpit there is a set of two laser cannons. SecondSight 07:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But please don't edit what Double D posted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the old X-wing game, along with an old "tech spec" Star Wars screensaver from back in the day, the laser cannons were marked as being in the middle of the two hulls; in the TIE Fighter game, the laser cannons were supposedly mounted on the wing pylons.--TIEDefenderPilot 08:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they're under the cockpit canopy like any other TIE. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Gand Starfighters?
Appeared in X-Wing: The Bacta War. They were modified TIE bombers, with a hyperdrive motivator and navicomp, wings cut in Interceptor shape, six concussion missiles, shields, and presumably greater manueverability. I think they ought to be added-they participated along T'wilek Deathseeds in several battles. (Argh...still can't find the tilde button-damn laptop) (tilde tilde tilde tilde) User:82 Airborne
 * Do you have a quote? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Negative, Admiral. I'll get one from the library soon; I borrowed the book from the local library. That was months ago.
 * Ah, I see. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a listing on this page for these under Varients, but someone else reverted it. Not sure why... 69.141.234.101

How does it unload it's bombs
How does it unload it's bombs?--Herbsewell 03:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Through a chute in the bottom of the second pod. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How do they get out?--Herbsewell 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just told you. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you told me where they get out.--Herbsewell 14:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume the pilot just presses a button and they fall out. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do they fall out.--Herbsewell 14:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Because the pilot makes them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does he push them out?--Herbsewell 14:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do they go down instead of just staying inside the chute?--Herbsewell 14:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Herbsewell, why are you asking all these questions? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do the bombs fall down?--Herbsewell 15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Herbsewell, stop it. You're just being annoying now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gravity. --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 15:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about in space?--Herbsewell 15:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The force at which they are pushed out from the chute allows them to go down. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what pushes them?--Herbsewell 15:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An internal mechanism inside the second pod of the bomber, probably. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd assume they have a feeder mechanism like the TIE/gt starfighter. See . -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 15:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems very likely. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So if the pilot wanted to, he could unload bombs upside down?--Herbsewell 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in space, there is no rightside-up or upside-down, so it wouldn't matter, but in an atmosphere, it could prove deadly. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine, given that the forces that work on a ship undergoing maneuvers are indistinguishable from gravity, that the ship is designed to safely fire its weapons while experiencing accelerations (gravity or otherwise) from any orientation. jSarek 08:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But there still is the chance that the bomb could come back down and collide with the ship.--Herbsewell 20:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)